American Community Survey

History of the American Community Survey

Issued January 2024
Acknowledgments The History of the American Community Survey was prepared by the History 

Branch of the Policy Coordination Office (PCO) under the overall direction of 

Sharon Tosi Lacey, acting assistant chief, Records Policy, and chief historian. 

Monique E. Eleby, chief of PCO and chief privacy officer, provided policy and 

management guidance. Michael C. Cook, Sr., senior advisor, Office of the 

Director, and Christine E. Taylor, acting chief, Public Information Office (PIO), 

provided management guidance.

William Maury, former chief, History Branch, provided management guidance 

during the early work on this history, and along with David M. Pemberton, 

former senior historian, established the American Community Survey History 

Advisory Panel. Claudette Bennett, former assistant division chief for 

Publications Services, Administrative and Customer Services Division, 

provided management support during this period.

Christopher Martin, team lead, History Branch, coordinated the project and 

contributed to the research, writing, and editing. Michael Snow and Rebecca S. 

Kraus (both formerly of the History Branch) also contributed to the research, 

writing, and editing. David M. Pemberton, Carolyn A. Broomfield (formerly of 

the History Branch), and Nicholas I. Birnbaum provided research and logistical 

support. 

The following members of the American Community Survey History Advisory 

Panel—representing offices and divisions throughout the U.S. Census Bureau 

that played a role in the planning, research, development, testing, implementation, or evaluation of the American Community Survey—provided valuable 

guidance and needed documentation, and conducted or facilitated reviews: 

Mark Asiala, April Avnayim, Fern Bradshaw, Robert Brown, Ken Dawson, 

Justin Keller, Amelia Kermis, Robert Kominski, Maria Malagon, Alfredo 

Navarro, Michael R. Ratcliffe, Anne Ross, Nicole Scaniello, Nancy Torrieri, 

Janice Valdisera, Nate Walters, Joshua Winston, and Patrick Woodward.

The following contributed significantly to The History of the American 

Community Survey through their interviews, discussions, and reviews of material: Charles Louis Kincannon, former director of the Census Bureau; Daniel B. 

Levine, former deputy director; Nancy A. Potok, former deputy director and 

chief operating officer; Preston Jay Waite, former deputy director; Paula J. 

Schneider, former principal associate director for Programs; William P. Butz, 

former associate director for Demographic Programs; Frank A. Vitrano, former associate director for Decennial Census Programs; Nancy M. Gordon, then 

associate director of Demographic Programs; Timothy P. Olson, associate 

director for Field Operations; Deborah M. Stempowski, associate director for 

Decennial Census Programs; and Marie Argana, William Bell, Chet Bowie, Art 

Cresce, Barbara Diskin, Cheryl Chambers, Don Fischer, Deborah Griffin, David 

Hubble, Bruce Johnson, Sue Love, Margaret Martin, Larry McGinn, David 

McMillen, Louisa Miller, Grace Moe, Leonard Norry, Susan Schecter, Kathleen 

Styles, Cindy Taeuber, and Lynn Weidman. 

Musbaw Alawiye, Stacey Barber, Linda Chen, Christine E. Geter, and 

Monique Lindsay provided publication management, editorial review, graphic 

design and composition, and 508 compliance for electronic media and print 

under the direction of Corey Beasley, chief of the Graphic and Editorial 

Services Branch, Public Information Office.
History of the 

American Community Survey Issued January 2024

American Community Survey

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Robert L. Santos,

Director
SUGGESTED CITATION

Christopher Martin and 

Sharon A. Tosi Lacey,

U.S. Census Bureau,

 History of the 

American Community Survey,

U.S. Government 

Publishing Office, 

Washington, DC, 

January 2024.

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Robert L. Santos,

Director

Ron S. Jarmin,

Deputy Director and 

Chief Operating Officer

Monique E. Eleby,

Office Chief and Chief Privacy Officer 

Policy Coordination Office
Contents Delivering What Users Want: The Evolution of U.S. Census Bureau 

Small Area Data—Introduction to the History of the American 

Community Survey. 

Introduction. 

Early Attempts to Expand Data Products: 1880 and 

1890 Censuses. 

From 1910–1945, Newly Available Census Tract Data Used by Social 

Welfare Agencies, Local Businesses, and Governments. 

Population Movement and Growth Drove the Adoption of Both 

Computing Power and New Geographic Units: 1946–1964. 

Increased Federal Demands for Data to Document Programs and 

Empower Local Communities/Minorities: 1964–1975. .

Small Area Data Grow More Accessible, Use Expands as Computing 

Power Extends, and Governments Insist on Verified Results for 

Their Allocations: 1970–2010. .

Conclusion. .

Glossary. .

CHAPTERS

Chapter 1: Data Needs for a Changing Society. .

Introduction. .

Proposed Annual Sample Census. .

Development and Demise of the Annual Sample Census. .

A Mid-Decade Census. .

The Census Bureau in the Information Age. .

Options for a Mid-Decade Census. .

Response of the Budget Bureau. .

Scammon’s Proposal. .

Mid-Decade Census and the Great Society. .

The Budget Bureau Changes Its Mind. .

The Nixon Administration and the Mid-Decade Census. .

A 2 Percent Sample Census. .

Mid-Decade Census Bill Becomes Law. .

Implementing the Mid-Decade Census. .

Demise of the Mid-Decade Census. .

Cumulative Rolling Samples: An Alternative to a 

Mid-Decade Census. .

Kish’s Proposal. .

The Mid-1980s at the Census Bureau. .

Rethinking the Decennial Census at the End of the 1980s. .

A Shorter Decennial Census. .

Intercensal Data for Small Areas. .

Expanding the Population Estimates Program. .

Differences Between the Two Proposals. .

Census Bureau Reviews of the Proposals. .

The Status of Intercensal Data Collection Programs at the End of 

the 1980s. .
Chapter 2: The Emergence of Continuous Measurement. .

Introduction. .

Development of Support for Reform of Collection of Long-Form Data: 1989–1993. .

Issues of Content, Data Collection, Cost, Data Quality, and Stakeholders. .

Decision to Pursue Both a Long Form and Continuous Measurement in the 2000 Census. .

Conclusion. . 

Chapter 3: From the Drawing Board to Field Testing: 1995–1999. . 

Introduction. . 

1996 Continuous Measurement Test. . 

Data Collection. . 

The 1997 and 1998 Tests. . 

Preparing for the 1999–2002 ACS Test. . 

Data Capture and Data Processing. . 

Data Products. . 

Concerns of Data Users. . 

Data User Conferences. . 

Promoting the ACS. . 

Chapter 4: Research, Evaluation, and Outreach (2001–2004). . 

Introduction. . 

Census 2000 Supplementary Survey Demonstrates Operational Feasibility and Survey Quality. . 

Data Quality and Comparability Among C2SS, ACS Multiyear Averages: 1999–2001, 

 2000 Census Long-Form Data. . 

Continued Operational Quality and Improvements in the ACS: 2001–2002. . 

Incorporation of ACS Into 2010 Census Planning. . 

Delays in Implementation. . 

Language Research and the Spanish Language Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Outreach, Promotion, and Undestanding ACS Data. . 

Chapter 5: Nationwide Implementation: 2005–2010. . 

Introduction. . 

Preparations. . 

Sampling Frame and Sample Selection. . 

Data Users and Uses. . 

Modifications. . 

Changing Procedures. . 

Critics and Responses. . 

Fulfillment and Improvement. . 
U.S. Census Bureau 1

Delivering What Users Want: The Evolution of U.S. Census Bureau 

Small Area Data—Introduction to the History of the American 

Community Survey

INTRODUCTION

“Tools are of no value unless they are used” (Vergil 

Reed, assistant director, Bureau of the Census, 

December 29, 1941).1

The year 2010 marked a watershed in the history of 

the United States census. In that year, the U.S. Census 

Bureau released the first 5-year American Community 

Survey (ACS) estimates designed to provide data 

comparable to those produced by the decennial 

census long form used for the 2000 Census and 

previous censuses. The advent of the ACS signaled 

a change in the methodology and design underlying 

the collection of detailed information on population 

and housing characteristics for the nation's communities—a responsibility that the Census Bureau had 

shouldered increasingly at the behest of data users 

since the 1890 Census. This change had potentially 

far-reaching consequences. 

For decades, a growing number of people and institutions had sought more timely data for small areas 

than those provided by a once-a-decade decennial 

sample survey and had sought that data even down 

to the level of census tracts and block groups.2 Before 

the advent of the ACS, such data users turned to 

their own surveys or to administrative records, which 

they frequently found lacking sufficient demographic 

details. At the same time, the costs of conducting the 

decennial survey had risen as the complexities associated with data collection for a diverse population had 

increased. 

1

 The Census Bureau’s assistant director uttered these words 

when advocating that businessmen use the growing amount of census data available to them to tailor their operations more efficiently 

to markets where they sought to sell goods. Vergil Reed, assistant 

director, Bureau of the Census, “Business Uses of Data by Census 

Tracts and Blocks,” paper presented before the annual meeting of 

the American Statistical Association, New York City, December 29, 

1941, p. 2. 2 Small area data, as referenced throughout this paper, are 

defined as statistics for geographic areas below the level of 

counties or cities. This definition is taken from a paper by Marshall 

Turner and Frederick Bohme that examines the expansion of the 

number of geographic areas for which the Census Bureau published data. Nancy Krieger gives a great overview of changes in the 

use of census tract data for statistics of public health. The paper, 

“The National Census: The Parts Are Greater Than the Whole,” 

by Marshall L. Turner, Jr., and Frederick G. Bohme was prepared 

for presentation at the Social Science History Association annual 

meeting, November 5–8, 1992; along with Nancy Krieger’s paper, “A 

Century of Census Tracts: Health & the Body Politic (1906–2006),” 

Journal of Urban Health, Vol. 83, No. 3, May 2006, pp. 355–361.

The Census Bureau's response to these challenges 

was to launch a new design for its long-form survey based on a continuous data collection process 

that was decoupled from the once-a-decade census 

enumeration. This design made it possible to produce 

more current information for small populations than 

had ever been possible on a nationwide basis. At the 

same time, this enabled the agency to focus fully on 

the critical enumeration of the nation's population 

during the decennial census year. After more than 

10 years of testing, the first ACS data products were 

released in 2006 and provided data for areas with 

populations of 65,000 or more.3 Five years later, the 

first data products comparable to those from the 

decennial census long form were released, and the 

public had its first access to ACS data for small areas 

with populations of fewer than 20,000. While reactions to these data varied, broadly speaking, the government agencies and private-sector organizations 

that had always thrived on long-form survey data 

of the past embraced the ACS data for small areas. 

In addition, with the release of the first ACS 5-year 

estimates, communities that had previously relied on 

outdated census data to make critical decisions for 

allocating resources, or that had paid for supplemental local surveys to update census information, could 

begin to take advantage of current data every year 

from the ACS conducted by the Census Bureau. As 

the following pages will show, the implementation 

of the ACS was part of a long line of responses by 

the agency to address data users’ needs. As both 

the number of users and the number of types of 

users of small area data grew, their demand played a 

central role in the Census Bureau’s adoption of new 

geographic entities and the expansion of the data it 

published.

EARLY ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND DATA 

PRODUCTS: 1880 AND 1890 CENSUSES

Before the 20th century, few people or government 

entities made much use of census data below the 

state level. From 1790 to 1880, the Census Office 

concentrated almost exclusively on its constitutionally 

3 The Census Bureau released data products from ACS tests 

prior to 2006. For more details on ACS test data releases, refer to 

Chapters 3 and 4.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

mandated task of making a count of the population 

for the purposes of apportioning representation and 

taxation. According to an overview of the uses of 

census data in the 19th century, the major use of small 

area data was by civic boosters boasting of the size 

or growth rate of their municipalities or counties.4 The 

last two censuses of the 19th century, however, broke 

new ground when public health officers succeeded 

in persuading the Census Office to publish summary 

details of cities broken down into political districts. 

Since 1875, the American Public Health Association 

(APHA) had been calling for a national survey of sanitation.5 Waste disposal and overcrowding in housing were major concerns. For the 1880 Census, the 

Census Office hired John Shaw Billings and George E. 

Waring, Jr. to oversee the collection of data on death 

rates and the social statistics of cities. The two men 

were fresh from their work on the National Board of 

Health’s survey of sanitary conditions in Memphis in 

the aftermath of a yellow fever outbreak there. The 

reports that Waring and Billings compiled for the 1880 

Census expanded that work from Memphis to a few 

more cities before funding ran out. The Census Office 

published statistics on population, the number of 

dwellings, number of marshlands, and total land area 

broken down by political wards for a handful of cities.6 Small area variations within most of the nation’s 

growing cities were buried in citywide summaries. In 

addition, users had access to statistics on race and 

the number of foreign-born residents for towns with 

more than 4,000 inhabitants but not for comparably 

sized areas of most cities. John Shaw Billings included 

a call for a national system of recording births and 

deaths either under a permanent Census Office or the 

National Board of Health in his presidential address to 

the APHA in 1880.7

The Census Office appears to have agreed with that 

sentiment when it hired Billings in 1889 to oversee the 

4 Turner and Bohme, pp. 5–10; Carroll Wright, commissioner 

of Labor, and William C. Hunt, chief statistician, The History and 

Growth of the United States Census, GPO, Washington, DC, 1900. 5 Walter F. Willcox, “The Past and Future Development of Vital 

Statistics in the United States: I, John Shaw Billings and Federal 

Vital Statistics,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 

Vol. 21, No. 155, September 1926, p. 258. 6 Francis A. Walker, Report of the Superintendent of the Census 

to the Secretary of the Interior, 1881, GPO, Washington, DC, 

1881, p. 11; Fielding H. Garrison, M.D., “The Scientific Work of 

Dr. John Shaw Billings,” chapter of National Academy of Sciences 

Biographical Memoirs, Volume VIII, National Academy of Sciences, 

Washington, DC, 1917, pp. 395, 399–400; and George E. Waring, Jr., 

Tenth Census, 1880. Report on the Social Statistics of Cities, GPO, 

Washington, DC, 1886, pp. vii, 138–146, 282–284, 328. 7 Willcox, pp. 257–266.

Vital Statistics Division.8 Billings and his team greatly 

expanded what the Census Office published in terms 

of the number of cities for which the 1890 Census 

reported small area data. A special census report 

featured 27 cities for which it divided the population 

by ward and death rate per 1,000 persons by ward.9

The Census Office also published a smaller number of 

special reports on major cities for which agents from 

Billings’ division, with advice from local health officials, had subdivided wards into “sanitary districts” 

purported to have uniform housing and population 

characteristics (Figure 1).10 For these cities, the publication reported major cause of death by age, sex, 

immigration status, and even by Irish and German 

immigrants in each ward.11 Under Billings’ supervision, 

census clerks assembled death records from city 

coroners, hospitals, and public health agents for 6 

years preceding 1890 and assigned each death to the 

deceased’s ward or district of residence. The primary 

purpose of the Billings study was to investigate the 

effects of ethnic heritage, population density, climate, 

and drainage on sicknesses to build programs—such 

as housing codes—to eradicate diseases.12

FROM 1910–1945, NEWLY AVAILABLE CENSUS 

TRACT DATA USED BY SOCIAL WELFARE 

AGENCIES, LOCAL BUSINESSES, AND 

GOVERNMENTS

Researchers interested in Billings’ ward-level data 

found them inadequate and in the first decade of 

the 20th century, they developed a more useful data 

field from which to aggregate data.13 Rev. Dr. Walter 

Laidlaw, a Presbyterian minister, was doing research 

8 The Census Office had compiled and reported births and 

deaths since the 1850 Census but tabulated the data by state or 

groups of states. Records are unclear on when various divisions 

of the Census Office were established. National Archives staff 

indicated in their guide to census records that division chiefs 

were named in the records from the 1870s and 1880s but did not 

mention the names of the divisions or their purpose. Katherine M. 

Davidson and Charlotte M. Ashby, Records of the Bureau of the 

Census, Preliminary Inventory, National Archives and Records 

Administration, Washington, DC, 1997, pp. 16–21, 31. For Billings’ 

appointment, refer to Robert P. Porter, Report of the Superintendent 

of the Census to the Secretary of the Interior, Organization to June 

30, 1889, GPO, Washington, DC,1889, p. 3. 9 John Shaw Billings, M.D., Report on the Social Statistics of 

Cities in the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890, GPO, 

Washington, DC, 1895, pp. 11–14. 10 Robert P. Porter, Report of the Superintendent of the Census 

1890, GPO, Washington, DC, 1890, p. 17, and Robert E. Chaddock, 

“Sanitary Districts in the Analysis of Municipal Mortality and 

Morbidity Data,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. VI, No. 6, 

June 1916, p. 538. 11 John Shaw Billings, Vital Statistics of the District of Columbia 

and Baltimore Covering a Period of Six Years Ending May 31, 1890, 

GPO, Washington, DC, 1893, Tables 6–12 and pp. 51–56. 12 Porter, 1889, pp. 3, 8-10 and Garrison, pp. 389–396.

13 Chaddock, pp. 538–541.
U.S. Census Bureau

3

Figure 1.Map of Billings Sanitary Districts in Manhattan

Source: John Shaw Billings, Vital Statistics of New York City and Brooklyn: covering a period of 6 years ending May 31, 1890, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1894, p. 164.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

to help New York City’s churches. He wanted to help 

them figure out which congregations would find their 

parishioners displaced by business and industries and 

which would need to change their recruiting and outreach to accommodate new residents from different 

ethnic and occupational backgrounds.14

Directing research for the New York Federation of 

Churches, Laidlaw found that he could not compare the same areas over time because New York 

state changed the boundaries of election districts in 

1905.15 He suggested dividing cities into more permanent geographic units for study. The New York City 

Tenement House Department seconded Laidlaw’s 

suggestion and recommended creating districts 

that were relatively homogeneous in terms of ethnic 

groups and types of housing.16 The Tenement House 

Department even asked that data be tabulated by 

city block, but the Census Bureau, renamed when the 

Census Office became a permanent federal agency 

in 1902, argued that the burden on the agency would 

be too great. Under Laidlaw’s lobbying, the Census 

Bureau agreed that the next decennial census (in 

1910) would collect data using a new unit (eventually called a “census tract”) for New York City and 

would make the initial tabulations, but it would leave 

preparation of final tables based on these data and 

their publication to interested groups. The Federation 

of Churches paid $60,000 for the Census Bureau’s 

tabulations for New York City, the publishing of the 

tables, and an accompanying study.17 On the study’s 

release date, the Federation of Churches encouraged 

churches to aid the “new immigrants” whose numbers 

the study documented.18 The 1910 and 1920 Censuses 

also tabulated basic tract data for the eight largest 

cities, but these data elicited little interest for several 

years.19

14 U.S. Census Bureau, Census Tract Manual, Fourth Edition, GPO, 

Washington, DC, 1958, p. 1. 15 U.S. Census Bureau, Census Tract Manual, Fourth Edition, GPO, 

Washington, DC, 1958, p. 1. 16 Howard Whipple Green and Leon E. Truesdell, “Census 

Tracts in American Cities,” Bureau of the Census, Washington, DC, 

December 1934, p. 1. 17 The Tenement House Department would have preferred 

statistics on 49,000 city blocks for New York City as they would be 

much more homogeneous in terms of population and the characteristics of the housing in each, but the Census Bureau’s consultant balked at the cost and effort such tabulations would entail. 

Arthur L. Swift Jr., dean of the New School of Social Research, 

“Doctor Laidlaw’s Vision: The Early Years,” Golden Anniversary 

of Census Tracts, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

American Statistical Association, Sept. 5, 1956, American Statistical 

Association, Washington, DC, 1956, pp. 4–5; and Howard Whipple 

Green, Census Tract Manual, 1947, p. 1. 18 “Churches Will Aid Foreign-Born Here,” New York Times, 

February 2, 1914. 19 Green and Truesdell, 1934, p. 1.

Social workers, community chests, and leaders of 

not-for-profit health organizations laid out tracts 

in more cities in the 1920s and paid for tabulations.20 Howard Whipple Green, the secretary of the 

Cleveland Health Council, heard of Laidlaw’s work in 

1926 and raised money to pay for the final tabulation 

of tract data for Cleveland from 1910 and 1920. Green 

also delineated tract boundaries in adjacent suburbs, 

becoming the first person to do so. Green’s intent 

was to provide evidence to organizations about 

where they should concentrate efforts to prevent the 

spread of tuberculosis and reduce infant mortality.21

The Cleveland Plain Dealer assisted the effort by 

paying the $10,000 required for the final tabulation 

because its editors, Green later recalled, “had been 

convinced [tract data] would be helpful in showing 

prospective advertisers the Cleveland market.”22

Green presented Cleveland’s tract data to other social 

workers who began laying out tracts in their cities. 

Green’s outreach coincided with the rise in popularity 

of the work of Sociologist Ernest W. Burgess. Burgess 

and his students argued that cities could be understood by studying the zones of activity and neighborhoods within them.23 In time for the 1930 Census, census tract committees in 18 cities had delineated tracts, 

won the Census Bureau’s approval of their tracting, 

and raised money to pay for tabulations.24

In the 1930s, representatives from social welfare charitable groups continued to figure prominently in the 

ranks of potential users urging the collection of small 

area data. They were joined by an increasing number 

of officers from state and municipal governments in 

pressing the Census Bureau to recognize and tabulate data for tracts in their cities. Seven employees 

20 Community chests were umbrella organizations coordinating 

work amongst charities and providers of social assistance. Some 

took on a role akin to an auditor of a city’s community organizations. 21 Green saw the data as useful in determining where to site 

facilities and to target efforts from code enforcement to educational outreach on hygiene. Howard Whipple Green, “A Period of 

Great Growth and Development: 1926–1946,” Golden Anniversary 

of Census Tracts, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the 

American Statistical Association, Sept. 5, 1956, American Statistical 

Association, Washington, DC, 1956, pp. 11–13. The Cleveland Health 

Council according to Case Western University’s Encyclopedia of 

Cleveland History was a nonprofit organization that pulled together 

representatives from 14 of the city’s hospitals, <https://ech.cwru.

edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=CFHACHA>, accessed December 2010. 22 Green, 1956, pp. 11–13.

23 Green, 1956, pp. 11–13; and Ernest W. Burgess, Robert Ezra 

Park and Roderick McKenzie, The City, University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, 1925. 24 Green and Truesdell, 1934, p. 1.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

of municipal governments together with an equal 

number of state employees served as the leaders of 

census tract committees in 1937.25

State and local governments willingly devoted 

months or years of staff time to laying out tracts 

in part because of the growing scope of municipal activities. Between 1912 and 1927, for example, 

municipal expenditures in cities with populations 

over 100,000 swelled from $690 million to over 

$2.5 billion.26 New Deal programs responding to the 

Great Depression significantly expanded federal aid 

to cities and states. Federal, state, and municipal 

emergency and unemployment relief in 1929 was 

estimated at around $80 million; by 1934, it exceeded 

$2.5 billion.27 Cities, counties, and states also received 

New Deal monies to build public works. Prodded 

in part by this flow of funds, interest in using small 

area data had spread so much that Green and Leon 

Truesdell, the Census Bureau’s chief statistician, 

published a manual in 1934 establishing guidelines for 

city committees to draw tract boundaries. While the 

federal government allocated grants-in-aid to states 

for emergency relief based on formulas that relied 

heavily on the total populations of states, Green and 

Truesdell argued that census tract data were “invaluable for unemployment relief and other emergency 

25 Howard Whipple Green, “Census Tracts in American Cities,” 

Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, December 1937, 

pp. 3–5. Recognizing the value that small area data could yield, 

the American Statistical Association established the Committee of 

Census Enumeration Areas in 1931 to recruit people in more cities 

to delineate tracts. Green served as its chair and chief recruiter. He, 

in turn, appointed “key people” in each city who would form a committee drawing members from social service agencies, universities, 

and local government to set up tracts for her/his city. Green, 1956, 

pp. 12–15. 26 Solomon Fabricant, The Trend of Government Activity in the 

United States Since 1900, New York, National Bureau of Economic 

Research, 1952), pp. 77–83; and C. H. Woody, “The Growth of 

Governmental Functions,” Chapter 25, Recent Social Trends in the 

United States, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1933, as in Solomon Fabricant, 

The Trend of Government Activity in the United States Since 1900, 

National Bureau of Economic Research, New York, 1952, p. 81. 27 Paul Webbink, “Unemployment in the United States, 1930–

1940,” American Economic Review, Vol. 30, No. 5, (Feb 1941), 

pp. 259–260. Total government spending on public aid between 

1933 and 1940 amounted to $25.78 billion or roughly 5.2 percent 

of national income for that period. National Resources Planning 

Board, “The Economic Effects of the Disbursement and Collection 

of Public Aid Funds,” Chapter XI of Security Work and Relief 

Policies, GPO, Washington, DC, 1942, p. 325. By 1935, such grants 

stood at over 34 percent of the federal budget. The Council of 

State Governments, Federal Grants In Aid, 1949, and The Council 

of State Governments, Federal Grants In Aid, 1949, found in Margo 

Anderson, The American Census: A Social History, Yale University 

Press, New York, 1988, p. 179.

activities.”28 Beyond relief planning, cities used small 

area data when planning where to situate the facilities 

and services they had started expanding between 

1912 and 1927 and continued to build with federal aid 

in the 1930s. Speaking to the Convention of Local 

Planners in 1939, Vergil Reed, an assistant director 

of the Census Bureau, said that census tract data 

could serve as “scientific yardsticks upon the need 

for streets and viaducts and parks, and your ability 

to maintain them.” The data would show planners, 

he said, which areas had the population growth to 

warrant new facilities and the likely future tax base 

to pay for them.29 Truesdell, Green, and the heads of 

tract committees from 64 cities then convinced the 

Census Bureau to publish data for all cities that had 

been tracted in time for the 1940 Census.30

From the mid-1930s onward, the spread of statistics 

for business uses brought with it a demand for even 

more details for small areas, data for small geographic 

areas beyond tracted cities, and data even for areas 

smaller than tracts. During the late 1920s and early 

1930s, businesses’ demand for census data expanded 

beyond their previous desire mostly for national-level 

measures of economic productivity and industries.31

By 1934, business users of small area data included 

real estate boards, street railways, and companies 

selling cars, refrigerators, and natural gas.32 Vergil 

Reed attempted to recruit new business users by 

showing an assembly of statisticians the possibilities 

as already used by other firms. A grocery chain, Reed 

pointed out, had created a Brooklyn study to identify 

areas where it should open new stores based on the 

number of food stores in each tract enumerated by 

one of the first business censuses.33 In response to 

numerous mid-1930s requests to “furnish intra-city 

28 Joseph P. Harris, “The Social Security Program of the United 

States,” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, June 

1936, pp. 455–493; J. Kerwin Williams and Edward A. Williams, 

“New Techniques in Federal Aid,” The American Political Science 

Review, Vol. 34, No. 5, October 1940, p. 954; Elias Huzar, “Federal 

Unemployment Relief Policies: The First Decade,” The Journal of 

Politics, Vol. 2, No. 3, August 1940, pp. 330–331; and Green and 

Truesdell, p. 5. 29 Vergil D. Reed, assistant director of the Bureau of the Census, 

“What the 1940 Census Will Mean to Cities,” an address delivered 

before the annual convention of the American Municipal Association 

at Chicago, IL, Nov. 1, 1939, pp. 6, 9. 30 Green, 1956, p. 15.

31 Wesley C. Mitchell, ed., Income in the United States, Its Amount 

and Distribution, 1909–1919, NY: National Bureau of Economic 

Research, Inc., 1922 and Handbook of Marketing Research, McGrawHill, Inc., New York, 1974, pp. 1–7 ff., as in Turner and Bohme, 

pp. 6–7. 32 Green and Truesdell, 1934, p. 5.

33 Vergil Reed, “Some Suggested Uses for Census of Business 

Data,” address delivered before the American Statistical 

Association, Chicago, IL, December 28, 1936, pp. 2–3, 9–10. The 

speech was republished in the Journal of Marketing in April 1937.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

business tabulations” on population and business 

sales broken down by “market areas,” the Census 

Bureau worked to refine, between 1934 and 1936, 

the central business district (CBD) paradigm in the 

primary city of a metropolitan district. Sociologist 

Ernest Burgess had first introduced the CBD paradigm in 1925, but its proponents had not elaborated 

on how to delineate a CBD’s boundaries. Other areas 

that the Census Bureau asked businesses to consider 

as “market areas” included neighborhood business 

streets clustered in outer areas of the city. The agency 

also worked with business groups to observe whether 

it would be feasible to use data from accumulations 

of blocks or block frontages but, in 1936, said that 

it might not be able to disclose information for that 

small of an area. In some places, special tabulations 

for that small of an area could lead to the danger 

of the Census Bureau disclosing information on an 

individual entity, thereby violating laws requiring the 

confidentiality of responses.34

Interest in the “market areas” and CBD concepts 

spread to the private sector as Nelson Seubert, the 

head of research for a major marketing firm, floated 

a proposal that the American Marketing Association 

(AMA) consider market areas as being sets of minor 

civil divisions (MCDs) and remainders of counties 

outside of the central city (refer to the section on 

population movement and new geographic units that 

follow).35 Estimating that the Census Bureau could 

not afford to “double its workload” by making that 

many tabulations, Reed suggested that businesses 

order special tabulations of combinations of sets of 

enumeration districts and/or minor civil divisions. A 

business, Reed argued, could purchase such tabulations for “market areas” that it defined as matching the extent of its sales area or the market for its 

34 Malcolm J. Proudfoot, research geographer of the Bureau of 

the Census, “Intra-City Business Areas for Principal Cities,” paper 

presented at the Annual Convention of the American Marketing 

Society, November 27, 1936, republished in the Journal of Marketing, 

January 1937, Vol. 1, Issue 3, pp. 231–237; and Burgess, Park, and 

McKenzie, pp. 50–52. For the history of confidentiality laws and 

policies pertaining to census data, refer to Census Bureau, A 

Monograph on Confidentiality and Privacy in the U.S. Census, July 

2001, pp. 14–15 available online at <www.census.gov/history>, 

accessed June 2011. 35 Seubert’s firm Media Records, Inc. (MRI) was known for tracking advertising expenditures and providing independent audits of 

newspapers’ circulation numbers. Vergil D. Reed, “Some Statistical 

Possibilities of Defining Market Limits,” paper presented at the 

American Marketing Association, Atlantic City, N.J., December 1937 

reprinted in Journal of Marketing, July 1, 1938, pp. 5–6; and Nelson H. 

Seubert, “How Big Is a Market Area,” Journal of Marketing, July 1938, 

Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 37–38. 

services.36 By 1941, business leaders responded by 

using such data in the following ways:

• Radio stations had used locally generated block 

information along with census tabulations by 

enumeration district to report to the Federal 

Communications Commission how many households lived “within certain intensity bands.”

• Banks and real estate firms used tract information 

to evaluate market values for properties and assess 

the credit risks of making loans.

• A chamber of commerce used that data to 

help young doctors choose locations to set up 

practices.

• Movie theaters used tract data to determine where 

to build and open new theaters.37

This growing level of demand led the Census Bureau, 

after the 1940 Census, to justify the costs of preparing limited housing information on blocks in 191 cities 

of 50,000 or more and making block maps showing 

details for cities of 100,000 or more. Reed correctly 

predicted in 1941 that many firms would combine that 

data on blocks to decide how and where they conducted business. (refer to Figure 2 for the relationship 

of blocks to tracts and MCDs.)38

Depression-era statisticians additionally used small 

area data as a sample frame for the newly adopted 

tool of sample surveys.39 Agencies needed to know 

how many people were unemployed and in what 

areas they lived; however, recordkeeping among 

myriad public aid programs had taken a back seat 

to funneling money and jobs to Americans in need. 

The Civil Works Administration conducted a Trial 

Census of the Unemployed in late 1933, to measure 

unemployment and also to test sampling using block 

36 Reed, 1937, pp. 9–10.

37 Vergil Reed, “Business Uses of Data by Census Tracts and 

Blocks,” paper presented before the annual meeting of the 

American Statistical Association, December 29, 1941, pp. 3–6. 38 A. Ross Eckler and E. P. Staudt, “Marketing and Sampling Uses 

of Population and Housing Data,” Journal of the American Statistical 

Association, Vol. 38, No. 221, March 1943, p. 91, paper originally 

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical 

Association, Cleveland, OH, December 29–31, 1942; and Reed, 1941, 

pp. 5–7. 39 Refer to Herman M. Somers, “Adequacy of Data in the Field of 

Public Aid,” Journal of American Statistical Association, Vol. 36, No. 

213, March 1941, for the inadequacy of administrative records. Refer 

to Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton, Revolution in United 

States Government Statistics, 1926–1976, GPO, Washington, DC, 1978, 

pp. 39–47, for the adoption of sampling surveys.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

segments in urban areas as a sampling frame.40

Politicians in the 1930s authorized sample surveys to 

meet the need for intercensal data when they found a 

mid-decade census too costly and politically unfeasible.41 The Works Progress Administration (WPA) 

responded to the continued need to observe how aid 

programs had changed conditions when it launched 

the Sample Survey of the Unemployed in 1940. Its 

monthly interviews of 20,000 sampled households 

were drawn from strata of urban and rural counties 

and were selected using a technique now called 

“cluster sampling,” which essentially consisted of 

selecting households from every nth block in urban 

40 Duncan and Shelton, pp. 37–38 and Somers, p. 87. In contrast, 

Census Bureau statisticians involved in the 1937 Enumerative Check 

Census of Unemployment ruled out using cluster sampling based on 

census blocks as requiring too much advance planning, instead they 

drew its sample from sets of the nation’s residential postal routes. 

They first categorized all of the nation’s residential postal routes by 

the degree of urbanization of the area and then put each route into 

sets of 50 postal routes in similarly urbanized or rural areas. The statisticians then selected the nth postal route from each set of 50, and 

postal workers enumerated every household in the route. Calvert 

Dedrick and Morris Hansen, “The Postal Route Sample,” Appendix E, 

The Enumerative Check Census, Vol. IV, The Final Report on Total and 

Partial Unemployment, GPO, Washington, DC, 1938, 

pp. 159–161. 41 Anderson, 1988, p. 177.

areas and selecting ones in rural areas from every nth 

section of townships.42

As the WPA began to wind down operations, the 

Census Bureau took over the WPA Survey of the 

Unemployed in 1942, expanded it, and renamed it 

twice—first, the Monthly Report on the Labor Force 

and then the Current Population Survey in 1947.43 The 

Census Bureau also added weighting to the 

42 Duncan and Shelton, p. 47.

43 As unemployment declined during World War II, the federal 

government terminated several WPA programs and transferred 

several others. An executive order transferred the survey to the 

Census Bureau in August 1942. Census Bureau, Annual Report of 

the Director of the Census, July 1, 1942–June 30, 1942, 1943, p.1; and 

Duncan and Shelton, pp. 47, 54–55.

As a later generation did in the 2000s with the 

American Community Survey, politicians in the 

1930s authorized sample surveys to meet the 

need for intercensal data when they found a 

mid-decade census too costly and politically 

unfeasible.

Figure 2.

Census Small Area Geography

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Association of Public Data Users, A Guide to State and Local Census Geography, June 1993. 
8 U.S. Census Bureau

samples—samples from a given small area were 

weighted based on the frequency in the total country 

of small areas of similar characteristics.44, 45 Small area 

data were also used in such studies by statisticians 

to check the representativeness of the small areas 

for which they chose their samples versus the larger 

national, statewide, or metropolitan population of 

small areas.46

By the early 1940s, sample surveying had spread far 

beyond federal agencies. Marketing companies conducted surveys that used the boundaries of enumeration districts as a geographic control on how their 

interviewers selected households and the characteristics of such districts as a means to quickly find the 

demographic segments they wanted to survey.47

POPULATION MOVEMENT AND GROWTH 

DROVE THE ADOPTION OF BOTH COMPUTING 

POWER AND NEW GEOGRAPHIC UNITS: 

1946–1964

Rapid population growth after World War II 

expanded local governments’ use of census data 

to plan where to build facilities in newly urbanized 

areas; this led the Census Bureau to extend the 

number of cities for which it provided tract data and 

to publish new figures on metropolitan areas. Much 

as they had used small area data in the 1930s, city, 

county, and state governments drew upon tract data 

when extending sewer lines, building new roads, 

and approving proposed locations for hospitals and 

shopping centers.48 Population growth in suburbs and 

in lands newly annexed to cities meant that officials 

44 The weight for a responding unit in a survey dataset is an 

estimate of the number of units in the target population that the 

responding unit represents. In general, since population units may 

be sampled with different selection probabilities and since response 

rates and coverage rates may vary across subpopulations, different 

responding units represent different numbers of units in the population. The use of weights in survey analysis compensates for this 

differential representation, thus producing estimates that relate to 

the target population. 45 Frankel and Stock, Journal of the ASA, March 1942, as in 

Duncan and Shelton, p. 47. 46 Hansen and Hurwitz, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 14 

1943, pp. 333–362, as in Duncan and Shelton, pp. 54–55. 47 Alfred Watson, “Use of Small Area Data in Marketing Analysis,” 

Journal of Marketing, April 1942, Part 2, Vol. 6, Issue 4, pp. 42–47. 

Watson had published widely in the field of marketing research 

and was working in the division of Commercial Research for the 

Curtis Publishing Company. His paper had been presented at a joint 

session of the American Statistical Association and the American 

Marketing Association. 48 Robert W. Burgess, director of the U.S. Census Bureau, “The 

Relation of Census Tracts to the General Census Program,” paper 

presented at the 113th Annual Meeting of the American Statistical 

Association, December 30, 1953, and A. Ross Eckler, “Possibilities 

for a Quinquennial Census,“ paper presented at a Special Meeting 

called by the New York Chapter of the American Statistical 

Association, December 3, 1952, p. 3.

from many more cities and counties asked the Census 

Bureau to approve tract delineations and provide 

data for them. Fueled in part by the “baby boom,” 

49 of the nation’s counties grew by over 100 percent 

from 1950 to 1960. These included three counties in 

suburban Washington, DC, and one county adjacent 

to each of the following large cities: Philadelphia, New 

York City, Denver, Los Angeles, Detroit, New Orleans, 

and Miami.49 In this period of growth, local government officials used small area data on the population 

of tracts combined with the number of children of 

preschool age to project upcoming school enrollments to decide where to site new schools.50

Commercial use extended as well. Bus companies 

used small area data when planning stops in growing areas and when eliminating them or changing 

routes to express lines in shrinking neighborhoods.51

The Census Bureau responded to the need for data 

on the expanding fringes of cities by modifying how 

it tabulated and published data. In fiscal year 1948, 

for example, the Census Bureau cooperated with the 

Bureau of the Budget (BoB) and other federal agencies to define standard metropolitan areas (SMAs) in 

time for the 1947 Census of Manufactures. The agencies defined a metropolitan area as a county containing a central city of 50,000 or more population and 

one or more whole adjacent counties (or their statistically equivalent units). An exception was made for 

Washington, DC, where the entire district stood in for 

a central metropolitan county. (BoB, later renamed 

the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], gained 

responsibility for defining metropolitan areas in 1950 

and has modified their definitions several times since 

then.)52 In essence, the federal authorities used the 

American Marketing Association’s (AMA) proposed 

definition from 1938 (refer to the previous section on 

business uses). Previously, different federal agencies 

had compiled statistics for cities and their surrounding 

49 U.S. Census Bureau, The Eighteenth Decennial Census of the 

United States, Census of Population, 1960, Vol. I Characteristics of 

the Population, GPO, Washington, DC, 1964, p. XXVIII. 50 Census Tract Manual, 1947, p. 7. 51 Census Tract Manual, 1947, p. 7. 52 BoB replaced the term SMA with the term standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) in 1959. OMB made substantial changes 

to the metropolitan area classification for the 1980 and 1990 

Censuses and after 2000. Terminology also changed from SMSA 

to metropolitan statistical area (MSA) in 1983, to the general term 

metropolitan areas (MAs) in 1990, which encompassed primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs) and consolidated metropolitan 

statistical areas (CMSAs). These in turn were modified to metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas and core based statistical areas 

(CBSAs) in 2000. Refer to U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Areas 

Reference Manual, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 

1994, pp. 13–3 to 13–6, 13–11; and Census Bureau, “Geographic Terms 

and Concepts, Appendix A,” 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public 

Law 94-171) Summary File, pp. A–15, A–16.
U.S. Census Bureau 9

suburbs using their own definitions of and boundaries 

for the metropolitan areas, making the resulting data 

from different agencies hard to match.53

In addition, the 1950 Census, for the first time, delineated and reported data on urbanized areas (UAs)—

which in 1950, meant cities of at least 50,000 people 

along with the adjacent closely settled areas. Where 

incorporated places contiguous to such cities had 

more than 2,500 inhabitants or were densely settled, the Census Bureau included them in urbanized 

areas. Unlike earlier metropolitan districts and other 

units for which the Census Bureau presented data, 

the boundary of the urbanized area also enveloped 

densely settled land in unincorporated areas continuous to urban areas. The goal in establishing such 

areas was to capture the number and characteristics 

of residents of counties who did not live inside the 

incorporated boundaries of cities or MCDs but who 

lived in areas that were not considered rural because 

of characteristics such as density of housing, urban 

land uses, and proximity to urban centers.54

The Census Bureau also published small area data 

from the 1950 Census for 11 SMAs in their entirety. 

Almost all tract committee heads surveyed in 1944 

had expressed an interest in extending tracts to cover 

entire metropolitan districts. The Census Bureau 

encouraged them to do so in the 1950s. Tract committees brought the total number of entirely tracted 

SMAs to 133 and nearly doubled the number of tracts 

for which the Census Bureau tabulated data in the 

1960 Census (Figure 3).55 This gave planners and 

marketers—who were anxious to make population 

projections in such metropolitan areas—data delineated down to smaller areas to work with at that time 

and in the coming decades.

Paralleling the demand for data on suburban growth 

was the need for more stable boundaries on which 

to tabulate and report data on county subdivisions. 

By the 1940s, users of data on minor civil divisions 

(MCDs) told the Census Bureau that in a number of 

western and southern states the boundaries of some 

53 Bureau of the Census, Annual Report of the Bureau of the 

Census, July 1, 1947–June 30, 1948, p. 2; and Seubert, 1938, 

pp. 34–38. 54 U.S. Census Bureau, United States Census of Population: 1950, 

Characteristics by Size of Place, GPO, Washington, DC, 1953, 

pp. 22–23, U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Report of the Bureau of the 

Census, July 1, 1948–June 30, 1949, p. 4; and U.S. Census Bureau, 

Census Tract Manual, Fourth Edition, GPO, Washington, DC, 1958, 

pp. 36–37. 55 R. Burgess, 1953, p. 5; Green, 1944, p.1; and U.S. Census 

Bureau, Census Tract Manual, Fifth Edition, GPO, Washington, DC, 

1966, p. 2.

county subdivisions were too obscure and changed 

too frequently to make the data useful. State health 

agents, highway planners, agriculture department 

officers, and members of state chambers of commerce told the Census Bureau that they had so much 

trouble tracking changes within shifting MCDs that 

they found them too “non-standardized” to combine 

into recognizable areas with common social or economic characteristics. In response, the Census Bureau 

and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics set down 

rules for drawing census county divisions (CCDs) and 

authorized states and local committees to create 

their own boundaries. After the 1960 Census published data on CCDs in 18 states, the data were widely 

used by local government planning agencies and by 

marketing agencies (Figure 2).56 At least one federal 

agency soon amended its regulations to mandate 

that states use these small area data to determine 

eligibility for programs that use federal rural redevelopment monies.57

After World War II, city planning agencies launched a 

period of epic growth in the use of census small area 

data when they began engaging in urban redevelopment. Between 1941 and 1942, legislatures in Illinois, 

New York, and Michigan passed laws enabling cities 

to engage in urban redevelopment of “blighted” or 

“slum” areas, but the real work was shelved during 

WWII.58 In 1947, legislators in Illinois gave redevelopment commissions the power to identify blighted and 

slum areas and develop plans to repair, reconstruct, 

or demolish dilapidated structures within them or, 

if need be, to demolish the whole area. As the law 

spelled out, redevelopment planners could target a 

neighborhood based in part on factors census takers 

had identified in 1940—the age of dwellings, the 

lack of proper plumbing, state of disrepair, and the 

number of inhabitants per bedroom, among others 

(Figure 4).59 Later laws were more detailed on what 

“blight” meant. For example, Illinois mandated in 1953 

that a local agency had to show that at least 50 percent of the targeted area’s housing was more than 35 

56 Robert Charles Klove, “Census County Divisions, Past 

and Future,” Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 

Washington, DC, 1973, and Bureau of the Census, Bureau of 

Agricultural Economics, and Washington State Census Board, 

“Statistical Areas on a State-wide Basis,” n.d. circa 1948, Appendix 

A, Klove, 1973. 57 Sterling M. McMurrin, U.S. commissioner of Education and 

Abraham Ribicoff, secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 

“Title 45-Public Welfare,” 26 Federal Register 5316, 1961. 58 Jon C. Teaford, Rough Road to Renaissance: Urban 

Revitalization in America, 1940–1985, Johns Hopkins University 

Press, Baltimore, MD, 1990, pp. 34–35. 59 Neighborhood Redevelopment Corporation Law of 1947, 

Chapter 67 1/2, par. 253-11, 315 ILCS 20/3-11.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

years old.60 Cities nationwide received massive boosts 

in redevelopment efforts when the Housing Act of 

1949 provided federal loans to match redevelopment 

funds raised by local government for local public 

agencies.61 The Pittsburgh Planning Commission’s 

study and plans for the city’s North Side gave examples of how planners used census data after the 1949 

act (Figure 5 and Figure 6). It recommended one portion of the neighborhood for clearance based in part 

on the area’s overcrowding (calculated from the 1950 

Census figures for the number of dwellings per census block and percentage of dwellings having more 

than 1.51 persons per room).62 In addition to eradicating “blight,” urban redevelopment planners sought to 

60 Urban Community Conservation Act of 1953, Ch. 67 1/2, 

paragraph 91.8, 315 ILCS 25/1. Source: Laws 1953, p. 1240. 61 Housing Act of 1949 as in Conference Report, 81st Congress, 

1st Session, House of Representatives, Report No. 975, p. 3. 62 In addition, the district slated for demolition had a higher than 

citywide average percentage of dwellings which census takers had 

checked off as dilapidated (Figure 4). Pittsburgh Regional Planning 

Commission and the Pittsburgh City Planning Commission, “North 

Side Study,” April 1954, pp. 7, 10, 44; and U.S. Census Bureau, 

Urban and Rural Enumerator’s Reference Manual: 1950 Census of 

the United States, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 

1949.

help central city shops compete with suburban shopping centers by building freeways to relieve traffic 

congestion in urban shopping districts.63

The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 transformed the 

urban landscape by authorizing the federal government to assume 90 percent of the cost on the construction of 5,300 miles of urban freeways.64 As with 

slum clearance, the plans for these roads boosted 

the need for small area data. By the mid-1950s, state 

highway departments were using census tract data 

to conduct origin and destination surveys; and the 

Federal Highway Act of 1962 required planning using 

census block population data for any project in an 

urbanized area.65 Between 1950 and 1954, urban 

and regional planning bodies authored over 100 

63 Roger Van Tassel, “Economic Aspects of Expressway 

Construction,” Journal of the American Planning Association, 

Vol. 20, No. 2, 1954, pp. 83–86. 64 Teaford, pp. 93-4.

65 A. Ross Eckler, “A Period of Expanding Use of Tract Statistics: 

1946–1956,” paper presented at the Golden Anniversary Luncheon, 

Annual Meeting of American Statistical Association, Detroit, MI, 

September 8, 1956, p. 3; U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the Census 

Advisory Committee on Small-Area Data,” July 19–20, 1965, p. 20; 

and Appendix H in Turner and Bohme, p. 17.

Figure 3.

Number of Census Tracts: 1910–1960

Number of tracts Cities with tracts

Sources: Arthur L. Swift Jr., “Doctor Laidlaw’s Vision: The Early Years,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical 

Association, Sept. 5, 1956; Howard Whipple Green and Leon E. Truesdell, “Census Tracts in American Cities,” Bureau of the Census, 

Washington, DC, December 1934; and Marshall L. Turner, Jr., and Frederick G. Bohme, “The National Census: The Parts Are Greater Than 

the Whole,” paper prepared for presentation at the Social Science History Association annual meeting, November 5–8, 1992. 

Census year

Census tracts/block 

numbering areas

(BNAs)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Cities covered

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
U.S. Census Bureau 11

publications using block or tract data.66 According 

to Conrad Taeuber, assistant director of the Census 

Bureau, planners and others led the Census Bureau 

to publish limited population data by blocks in the 

1960 Census along with the housing data previously 

provided. (Refer to the statement by Census Bureau 

66 Eckler, 1956, pp. 3, 19.

Assistant Director Morris Hansen to marketers later in 

this section).67

67 Conrad Taeuber, assistant director of the Census Bureau, 

“Comments for Workshop on the 1960 Census,” statement for 

workshop on the 1960 Census of the American Society of Planning 

Officials, San Francisco, CA, March 18, 1957, p. 4; and Morris Hansen, 

assistant director of the Census Bureau, “The Impact of the 1960 

Census,” a talk presented at the Seventh Annual Public Utilities 

Seminar of the American Marketing Association, Houston Texas, 

March 2, 1961, p. 9f.

Figure 4.

Instructions to Enumerators on Evaluating Whether or Not a Dwelling Was Dilapidated

“On the outside you see the run-down front steps and porch. These are insufficient to classify the unit as dilapidated but warn 

you to look further. Inside you see that the interior also is in disrepair. In combination these deficiencies are sufficient to classify 

the unit dilapidated.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Urban and Rural Enumerator’s Reference Manual: 1950 Census of the United States,” 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, circa 1949.
12 U.S. Census Bureau Figure 5. Portion of Pittsburgh’s North Side Showing Housing and Surface Streets in 1954 Note: Urban planners used maps such as the one above as a graphic representation of the overcrowding that they uncovered in census data on areas to be redevel- oped. Victorian-era houses, garage apartments, and other structures outlined in black occupied most of the space save for a grid of residential streets and alleys. Source: Pittsburgh Regional Planning Association and the Pittsburgh City Planning Commission, “North Side Study,” April 1954, p. 44, Government Printing Office, 1894, p. 164.
U.S. Census Bureau 13 Figure 6. Map of High-Rises and Freeways Proposed to Replace Existing Dwellings in a Portion of Pittsburgh’s North Side Note: Urban planners displayed their design for the reengineered neighborhood. High-rise apartments, pedestrian-oriented green space, two freeways, and a suburban-style shopping plaza would replace the existing neighborhood. Source: Pittsburgh Regional Planning Association and the Pittsburgh City Planning Commission, “North Side Study,” April 1954, p.44.
14 U.S. Census Bureau

In addition to the urban redevelopment commissions, 

suburban school districts, and highway planners 

previously noted, demand for data by civil defense 

agencies and public health researchers pushed the 

Census Bureau to adopt faster technologies for inputting and calculating data. In the 1960s, the Federal 

Civil Defense Administration used tract statistics 

as a measurement of daytime and nighttime population in order to draw up evacuation plans and 

locate fallout shelters.68 In addition, public health 

departments were looking to deepen their analysis 

of mortality statistics. The Public Health Conference 

on Records and Statistics reported great interest 

among its members in examining the effect of air 

pollution on mortality across cities using tracts or 

groups of tracts of similar socioeconomic status as 

a control factor.69 Between the 1940s and the 1960s, 

the Census Bureau’s decision to meet small area data 

users’ needs for more and more tabulations and more 

sample surveys compelled the agency to adopt the 

latest computer technologies. Former Census Bureau 

Director A. Ross Eckler remembered the situation 

with the following words: 

“In the 1940’s, it became evident that the punched 

card system . . . was unable to keep abreast of the 

new censuses and surveys, the greater number of 

inquiries, and the increased complexity of tabulations 

called for by users.”70

In response, the Census Bureau purchased UNIVAC I 

in time for this computer system to tabulate part of 

the 1950 Census.71 UNIVAC and its successors made it 

possible for the 1960 Census to be the first one fully 

processed on computers.72 To speed up the input of 

millions of forms, the Census Bureau collaborated 

with the National Bureau of Standards to develop the 

Film Optical Sensing Device for Input to Computers 

(FOSDIC). Together the computer processors and 

FOSDIC made census data available to the public 

sooner. Most notably, during the 1960 Census, the 

FOSDIC machine reduced the amount of time it took 

to capture the information on completed question68 Eckler 1956, p. 3; unpublished draft of a report by Edwin D. 

Goldfield, “Uses of Tract Statistics,” August 13, 1964, p. 5; and Henry 

Sheldon, “Special Census Program of the Bureau of the Census,” 

The American Statistician, April 1957, p. 7. 69 Elizabeth J. Coulter and Lillian Guralnick, “Analysis of Vital 

Statistics by Census Tract,” Journal of the American Statistical 

Association, Vol. 54, No. 288, December, 1959, pp. 730–736. 70 A. Ross Eckler, The Bureau of the Census, Praeger Publishers, 

New York, NY, 1972, p. 116. 71 Duncan and Shelton, pp. 126–129.

72 Howard G. Brunsman, “Significance of Electronic Computers 

for Users of Census Data,” Emerging Techniques in Population 

Research, proceedings for the 1962 Annual Conference of the 

Milbank Memorial Fund.

naires by 7 months.73 With these technological breakthroughs, the Census Bureau was able to overcome 

some of the cost and human resource limitations that 

in prior decades had hampered its ability to keep up 

with increased demands for small area data. 

As the use of sampling and computers spread 

throughout the economy, businesses and marketing 

firms succeeded in pushing the Census Bureau to 

publish block level data after the 1960 Census. When 

the agency surveyed marketing and business users on 

their needs, it found that they were using small area 

data for cities and their fringes to grade neighborhoods by buying power.74 By the early 1960s, large 

firms showed that they were well aware of the population’s movements and were planning their sales 

accordingly. Marketers and urban renewal planners in 

the 1960s lobbied Congress for a mid-decade census or a sample survey similar in scope to what the 

American Community Survey now does. Ford’s market research division manager testified in mid-decade 

census hearings in 1961 that the company used census 

data on the larger growth rates of the fringes of the 

country’s 212 metropolitan areas between 1950 and 

1960 to assess where to locate new car dealerships.75

Meanwhile, consulting firms used census population data in their analyses to aid smaller firms. For 

instance, in 1961 the president of the Real Estate 

Research Corporation cited upwards of 10,000 private 

clients for whom his firm helped identify investment 

opportunities using census data from enumeration 

73 A. Ross Eckler, Census Technical Paper 29, as in Duncan and 

Shelton, p. 133. 74 A. Ross Eckler, “Census Statistics for Local Use,” paper 

presented before the Raleigh Advertising Club, in Raliegh, North 

Carolina, on November 9, 1954. 75 Its marketing research manager cited census data showing a 

10.6 percent increase in central areas versus a 49 percent increase in 

portion of metropolitan areas outside the central areas. Statement 

of R. J. Eggert, marketing research manager, Ford Division, 

Ford Motor Company, to the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, Hearings on Mid-Decade Census, Part 1, 

Chicago, IL, October 25, 1961, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1962, pp. 18–41.

Marketers and urban renewal planners in the 

1960s lobbied Congress for a mid-decade census 

or a sample survey similar in scope to what the 

American Community Survey now does.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

districts.76 Marketing operations furthermore had 

grown much larger in scope, adding to the demand 

for up-to-date data of firms that employed direct 

mail advertising. The president of the International 

Association of Cross Reference Directory Publishers 

told Congress in 1962 about using small area data 

because mailings might run as high as 5–20 million 

families.77 Census Bureau officials made it clear to 

marketers in the early 1960s that it had extended its 

publishing to accommodate their demands. Census 

Bureau Assistant Director Morris Hansen cited marketers as the group demanding small area data the most 

and the chief driver behind the decision to present 

“statistics by blocks not only for the 300 cities of 

50,000 or more inhabitants but also for 170 smaller 

places.”78 By publishing limited population statistics 

by blocks in 1960, the Census Bureau increased marketers and other users’ access to statistics for which 

they would have previously had to pay for special tabulations.79 By the late 1960s, the Census Bureau was 

exploring with marketing associations to determine 

how it could provide data based on ZIP codes since 

business people recognized these units more readily 

than they did census tracts or blocks when examining 

population data.80

INCREASED FEDERAL DEMANDS FOR DATA 

TO DOCUMENT PROGRAMS AND EMPOWER 

LOCAL COMMUNITIES/MINORITIES: 1964–1975

Civil rights laws, court decisions, and antipoverty 

programs greatly expanded the scope of small area 

data needed to qualify for funds, assess program 

effectiveness, and/or monitor compliance. For 

instance, cities had to create community profiles of 

the inner-city neighborhoods for which they wanted 

76 Statement of Richard L. Nelson, president of the Real Estate 

Research Corporation, to the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, Hearings on Mid-Decade Census, Part 1, 

Chicago, IL, October 25, 1961, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1962, pp. 52–61, 

53, 55. 77 Statement of Jack R. Cole, president of the Mail Advertising 

Corp of America, to the U.S. House of Representatives, 

Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, Hearings on Mid-Decade Census, Part 

1, Chicago, IL, October 25, 1961, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1962, pp. 

130–138. 78 Morris Hansen, assistant director of the U.S. Census Bureau, 

“The Impact of the 1960 Census,” a talk presented at the Seventh 

Annual Public Utilities Seminar of the American Marketing 

Association, Houston, Texas, March 2, 1961, p. 9f. 79 Conrad Taeuber, assistant director of the U.S. Census Bureau, 

“Comments for Workshop on the 1960 Census,” statement for 

workshop on the 1960 Census of the American Society of Planning 

Officials, San Francisco, CA, March 18, 1957, p. 4. 80 Morris Hansen, “Outlook for Census Information by ZipCode Areas,” paper presented at the Meeting of the Direct Mail 

Advertising Association, Inc., Washington DC, March 8, 1967, 

Revised Version, July 12, 1967, pp. 1–5.

to set up community action programs under the 

Economic Opportunity Act.81 The use of small area 

data in New Haven served as an experiment later 

taken nationwide. There, in an effort to assess the 

effectiveness of several Great Society programs, the 

Census Bureau proposed getting the needed data 

from a full mid-decade census or a smaller sample 

survey. In 1965, officials in charge of the programs 

had concerns with either an annual survey or a middecade census because they feared that the proposed 

projects would not deliver the needed small area 

data until 2–7 years after the date of the census or 

survey.82 The Census Bureau, other federal agencies, 

and local governments developed methods to match 

state and local administrative records with census 

data at the block level in order to determine if these 

programs actually had reduced poverty rates and 

improved health outcomes in New Haven's program 

areas.83 Users found so much value in the study’s 

data linkages that the New Haven police department 

added its crime data to the database and the Office 

of Economic Opportunity had the Census Bureau 

replicate those same methods in Los Angeles (CA), 

Atlanta (GA), Phoenix (AZ), and Mound Bayou (MS).84

The fight to make voting and legislative representation more equitable made a larger number of politicians even more interested in small area data. After 

Baker vs. Carr and subsequent cases established 

the one-person, one-vote doctrine, advocates paid 

statisticians to develop computer models to propose 

81 A. Ross Eckler, “Emerging Federal Developments Related 

to State and Local Data Needs,” paper presented at the National 

Conference on Comparative Statistics, sponsored by the National 

Governor’s Conference in cooperation with the Council of State 

Governments, Washington, DC, February 25, 1966, pp. 2–3. 82 Statement of Dr. Raymond T. Bowman, assistant director for 

Statistical Standards, Bureau of the Budget, to the U.S. House of 

Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Hearings on 

Mid-Decade Census, Part 1, Washington, DC, May 4, 1965, 89th 

Cong., 1st Sess., 1965, p. 54. Also, the written statement by 

Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity 

to the Honorable Harley O. Staggers, chairman, U.S. House of 

Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, April 30, 1965, in the 

Hearings on Mid-Decade Census, Part 1, May 4, 1965, p. 11. 83 Samuel P. Korper, John C. Deshaies, Leo A. Schuerman, 

Ronald E. Crellin, “Composite Social Indicators for Small Areas—

Census Use Study—Recent Developments in Methodology and 

Uses,” paper presented at the Conference on Small Area Statistics 

of the American Statistical Association, Montreal Canada, August 

1972, p. 2. 84 Korper, et. al., pp. 7–9; Samuel P. Korper, “Census Use Study 

Health Information Study Interaction With New Haven Data Users 

in the Health Area,” paper presented at the Seminar at the Health 

Services Mental Health Administration (DHEW), Rockville, MD, 

March 22, 1971, pp. 6–9.
16 U.S. Census Bureau

redrawn state legislative districts in Delaware and 

Connecticut.85, 86

Congress, moreover, used small area data from the 

1960 Census in drafting the Voting Rights Act of 

1965. The 1965 act authorized federal authorities to 

oversee elections in areas where census data indicated that the number of voters had fallen below 

50 percent of the voting-age population. Also, the 

Department of Justice paid the Census Bureau to 

run special tabulations on voter turnout versus the 

voting-age population by enumeration district in a 

Mississippi case.87

Small area data usage for redistricting grew in the 

1970s. Legislators, governors, and other officials 

flooded the Census Bureau in 1970–71 with around 

1,200 phone calls a month asking for data, and the 

Census Bureau responded with voluminous printouts 

and “bed sheet” sized maps. To align census data 

more readily with voting districts, Congress passed 

Public Law 94-171 in 1975, which required the Census 

Bureau to provide state legislatures with the small 

area census population tables (printouts, data tapes, 

and data packages for redistricting purposes) within 

1 year of Census Day. Seventeen states handed the 

Census Bureau their proposed voting district (VTD) 

boundaries in time for the agency to release voting 

district data after the 1980 Census.88 In addition, five 

states entered into contracts to draw block areas 

for all areas of the state not covered by the Census 

Bureau’s block program.89

85 Baker v. Carr was a 1962 Supreme Court ruling establishing the 

role of the judiciary in redistricting. 86 Margo Anderson and Stephen E. Fienberg, “To Sample 

or Not to Sample? The 2000 Census Controversy,” Journal of 

Interdisciplinary History, 30.1, 1999, pp. 14–15; Stuart S. Nagel, 

“Simplified Bipartisan Computer Redistricting,” Stanford Law 

Review, Vol. 17, No. 5, May 1965, pp. 863–899; and S. W. Hess, 

et. al., “Nonpartisan Political Redistricting by Computer,” Operations 

Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, November–December 1965, p. 1001. 87 Oral history interview with Marshall Turner, interviewed by 

David M. Pemberton, August 21, 2001. 88 Marshall L. Turner, Jr. and Robert A. LaMacchia, “The 

U.S. Census, Redistricting, and Technology,” Social Science 

Computer Review, Vol.17, No. 1, spring 1999, pp. 17, 20. 89 Testimony of Marshall L. Turner, Jr., assistant chief of the 

Decennial Census Division, U.S. Bureau of the Census before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Census and 

Population. Field Hearing, Part X, Houston, TX, May 4, 1979.

Following a 1983 meeting with representatives of 

the Department of Justice and both major political 

parties, the Census Bureau agreed it would extend 

census tracts and blocks nationwide and make block 

group data available for the entire United States for 

the 1990 Census (Figure 7 and Figure 8).90

SMALL AREA DATA GROW MORE ACCESSIBLE, 

USE EXPANDS AS COMPUTING POWER 

EXTENDS, AND GOVERNMENTS INSIST ON 

VERIFIED RESULTS FOR THEIR ALLOCATIONS: 

1970–2010

The start of the 1970s saw a modified rollback of 

Great Society programs and the federal government's 

return of authority to the states merely shifted more 

of the demand for small area data to them. In place of 

Great Society programs in which inner-city neighborhoods ran programs with federal funds, the federal 

government returned tax monies it collected to states 

and cities. President Richard Nixon's revenue-sharing 

programs distributed federal tax revenues back to 

some 39,000 local and state governments. Even the 

smallest minor civil divisions became dependent on 

census population data and income data to receive 

their allocated funds.91 Meanwhile, the federal government continued grants in aid and other programs 

with eligibility and allocation of funds based on 

small area data. These included the 1980s Urban 

Development Action Grants and HUD Low Income 

Housing credits.92

In the late 1960s, local governments’ takeover of 

hundreds of public transit systems and federal 

regulations on highways and mass transit led the 

Census Bureau to develop Traffic Analysis Zones 

90 Turner and LaMacchia, p. 23.

91 J. Gregory Robinson, et. al., “Illustrative Assessment of the 

Impact of Census Underenumeration and Income Underreporting on 

Revenue Sharing Allocations at the Local Level,” paper presented at 

the American Statistical Association Meeting, August 1979. 92 Refer to Gonzalez for the allocation formulas for CETA, LEA, 

and LEAA. Refer to GAO/HRD-87-28 for the eligibilty criteria for UDAG “pockets of poverty.” Also, Maria Elena Gonzalez, 

“Characteristics of Formulas and Data Used in the Allocation of 

Federal Funds,” The American Statistician, Vol. 34, No. 4, (Nov., 

1980), pp. 202–204. U.S. General Accounting Office, “Grant 

Formulas: A Catalog of Federal Aid to States and Localities,” GAO/

HRD-87-28, Washington, DC, March 23, 1987, pp. 150–153; and 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, 26 U.S.C. 42(d)(5)(C).

In 1965, officials in charge of Great Society 

programs seemed to have objected to either an 

annual survey or mid-decade census because 

they feared that the proposed projects would not 

deliver the needed small area data until 2–7 years 

after the date of the census or survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Figure 7.

Number of Census Tracts/Block Numbering Areas: 1960–2010

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Figure 8.

Number of Census Blocks: 1960–2010

Source: Marshall L. Turner, Jr., and Frederick G. Bohme, “The National Census: The Parts Are Greater Than the Whole,” 

paper prepared for presentation at the Social Science History Association annual meeting, November 5–8, 1992; 

U.S. Census Bureau and Association of Public Data Users, A Guide to State and Local Census Geography, June 1993; 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing History, Vol. 2., GPO, Washington, DC, 2009. 

Census year

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
18 U.S. Census Bureau

(TAZs) and other data products.93 To meet the planning needs of cities, such as Chicago, Oakland, and 

Dallas, the Census Bureau distributed the 1970 Urban 

Transportation Planning Package (UTPP). The package gave transportation planners the data needed 

to analyze census population and commuting data 

aggregated from blocks into TAZs or ZIP Codes (later 

Zip Code Tabulation Areas [ZCTAs]). (Figure 9.)94

The passage of amendments to the Clean Air Act in 

1990 served to ramp up the usage and importance 

of small area data for transportation planners. States 

with metropolitan areas that had not met federal 

air quality standards had to demonstrate that any 

transportation improvement projects using federal 

funds would relieve congestion and air pollution 

before receiving funding. The Census Transportation 

Planning Package (CTPP) from the 1990 Census 

became one of the most valuable tools in states’ 

efforts to develop statewide transportation plans 

to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.95

The Census Bureau’s efforts to extend block data 

nationwide for redistricting purposes led it to create 

a geographic Information system (GIS), which dramatically reduced the workload for users seeking to 

customize their data. The agency had been working 

on such geocoding programs since the New Haven 

Study in 1967.96 Census Bureau employees input 

the geographic coordinates of street addresses and 

tract/block/corporate boundaries into computer 

databases. The resulting Geographic Base File/Dual 

Independent Map Encoding (GBF/DIME) system 

93 Steven J. Kish, “Local Government Financing of Public 

Transportation: a Case Study of Georgia Transit Systems,” Chapter 

3 in George M. Guess, ed., Public Policy and Transit System 

Management, Greenwood Press, NY, 1990; and Paul T. Manka, 

“Concepts and Procedures Used in Tabulating 1970-Census Data 

for the Urban Transportation Planning Package,” National Research 

Council, Census Data and Urban Transportation Planning, proceedings of a conference held in Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 21–23, 

1973; and Washington, Transportation Research Board, National 

Research Council, 1974, p. 11. 94 Siim Soot, “Census Data Use in Illinois by Research and 

Academic Community,” Decennial Census Data for Transportation 

Planning: Case Studies and Strategies for 2000, Conference 

Proceedings 13, Vol. 1, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 

1997, pp. 12–18. 95 Thabet Zakaria, Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission, “Conversion and Use of 1990 Census Transportation 

Planning Package in the Delaware Valley Region,” and Alan E. 

Pisarski, “Summary and Recommendations,” Decennial Census 

Data for Transportation Planning: Case Studies and Strategies for 

2000, Conference Proceedings 13, Vol. 1, National Academy Press, 

Washington, DC, 1997. 96 Geocoding is the process of taking an address and attaching 

or calculating longitude and latitude coordinates.

developed in that study was extended to 80 other 

urban areas for the 1970 Census.97 Throughout the 

1980s, the Census Bureau and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) extended geocoding to rural 

addresses and geographic features to create the 

Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing (TIGER) system.98

By its 1988–1990 nationwide launch, the TIGER system not only formed the basis for geographic information needed to conduct the 1990 Census but also 

provided a platform for the ongoing maintenance 

and dissemination of geographic information. With 

its work on TIGER, the Census Bureau was able to 

extend its enumeration by blocks and tracts and their 

equivalents to the entire nation because it quickly 

could produce customized high-quality maps for 

enumerators to find the boundaries of these units. 

Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the resulting growth of 

the number of tracts and blocks.99 Furthermore, the 

spread of personal computers able to download data 

or process census CD-ROMs soon enabled people 

working on redistricting to analyze the effect of 

changing the proposed boundaries of voting districts 

almost in real time. The TIGER system enabled the 

Census Bureau to retrieve the demographic data for 

the blocks making up the new districts quickly for the 

people proposing or evaluating them.100 Soon a wide 

array of users with access to GIS adopted the TIGER/

Line files to match their own geocoded data with census data for micromarketing and/or local planning.101

By automating the changes revealed by the agency’s 

Boundary and Annexation Survey of all governmental 

units (including tribes), the agency also allowed these 

governments to use data for their most current geography when participating in programs that allocated 

hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds.102 In 

addition, the Census Bureau decided to maintain and 

update information in the TIGER/Master Address File 

database instead of starting from scratch in building 

address files as it had in previous decennials. The 

97 U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Census of Population and Housing: 

Procedural History, Washington, DC, GPO, 1976, 1/7-8, 13/2-5; and 

Turner and Bohme, p. 18. 98 U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. 

History, Washington, DC, GPO, 1993, pp. 3–18–3–27. 99 Turner and Bohme, pp. 14, 22–3.

100 Turner and LaMacchia, pp. 23–25. 101 Turner and Bohme, p. 22f.

102 U.S. Census Bureau, 1993, pp. 3-4–3-6; U.S. Census Bureau, 

2000 Census of Population and Housing History, Vol. 2, Washington, 

DC: GPO, 2009, pp. 321–322; and Andrew D. Reamer, Surveying 

for Dollars: The Role of the American Community Survey in the 

Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds, Washington, DC, 

Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program, 2010, pp. 8–13.
U.S. Census Bureau 19

Census Bureau’s decision to maintain and update its 

TIGER/Master Address File eventually gave it a database with information sufficiently current to provide 

the sampling frame for a continuous survey such as 

the ACS.103

More recently, the internet age ushered in an era of 

citizens demanding transparency, and federal agencies responded by making searchable information 

readily available online about small areas to observe 

if programs were available or enforcement was 

being carried out equitably. For example, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

launched the Window to My Environment website 

(later called MyEPA and EJView) in 2001, which 

allowed users to enter a ZIP Code or address to find 

pollution levels, permitted sources of pollutants, and 

census data on the income and racial characteristics 

of the area. In part, growing out of the environmental 

103 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, Washington, DC, GPO, 2009, pp. 3–9.

justice movement, the website allowed users to 

observe how pollution and its regulation differed 

between minority and nonminority communities.104

The Community Development Financial Institutions 

Fund (CDFI), the Health Resources and Services 

104 In the early 1990s, the EPA had launched studies on environmental disparities by census block and formed the Office 

of Environmental Equity, after meeting with the Congressional 

Black Caucus, academics, and activists. National Academy of 

Public Administration, “Environmental Justice in EPA Permitting: 

Reducing Pollution in High-Risk Communities Is Integral to the 

Agency’s Mission,” December 2001, pp. 19, 20, and 41. For details 

on the launch of the website, refer to Julie Klocher, et. al., “Getting 

Information to People in Forms They Can Use and Understand,” 

public session notes from the National Environmental Innovations 

Symposium, December 6–7, 2000, Kansas City, MO, available online 

at <www.epa.gov>, accessed July 2010.

The Census Bureau’s decision to maintain and 

update its TIGER/Master Address File eventually 

resulted in a database with current information 

from which it could extract the sampling frame 

for a continuous survey such as the ACS.

NATION

REGIONS

DIVISIONS

STATES

Counties

Census Blocks

Block Groups

Census Tracts

Urban Areas

Core Based Statistical Areas

ZIP Code Tabulation Areas

School Districts

Congressional Districts

Voting Districts

Trac Analysis Zones

County Subdivisions

Subminor Civil Divisions

Places

Public Use Microdata Areas

State Legislative Districts

Urban Growth Areas

AIANNH Areas* (American Indian, Alaska

Native, Native Hawaiian

Areas)

s

ts

n

o

vi

Figure 9.

Hierachy of Census Geographic Entities in the 2010 Census

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Standard Hierarchy of Census Geographic Entities,” October 2010, 

<www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/data/developers/geoareaconcepts.pdf>.
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Administration (HRSA) and others launched websites 

similar to EJView that enabled local officials and service providers to search by ZIP Code, census tract, or 

CCD to identify if their areas have the demographic 

characteristics to qualify for federal assistance or 

grants. The websites also let average citizens see 

what services are available in their areas.105

CONCLUSION

By the late 1980s, planners within the Census Bureau 

sought to simplify the decennial census in order 

to run a mid-decade census or a survey delivering 

data more frequently and sooner after it was collected (Figure 10). Cost concerns and a desire to 

reduce the burden on respondents drove a number 

of stakeholders following the 1990 Census to back 

alternative designs for the 2000 Census. Several of 

those designs might have dropped the long-form 

sample questionnaire entirely with no replacement 

or reduced the content on the questionnaires. In 

response, users lobbied Congress pointing out that 

for many small businesses and small towns, Census 

Bureau data were the only source available or affordable to them for their planning.106 In response, the 

Census Bureau created a prototype for what became 

the American Community Survey (ACS) with a sample size large enough to derive estimates for census 

tracts and block groups. Throughout the creation of 

the prototype of the ACS and its field testing from 

1995–2004, the Census Bureau consulted with small 

area data users. One issue they raised was that while 

105 HUD User GIS Maps: <http://209.48.228.153/qctmap.html>. 

Find Shortage Areas: HPSA by State & County, <http://hpsafind.

hrsa.gov/HPSASearch.aspx>. CDFI Fund Mapping System: <www.

cdfifund.gov/mapping-system>, accessed June 2010. Resources: 

NMTC Qualifying Census Tracts/Non-Metro Counties, <www.

novoco.com/resource-centers/new-markets-tax-credits/nmtcmapping-tool>, accessed June 2010. 106 House Subcommittee on Census and Population of the 

Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, 20th Century Planning: 

Decennial Questionnaire Content, 102nd Cong., 2nd Session, 

October 1, 1992, pp. 1–3, 29, 37, 43–48, 97–100, 124.

the survey would bring more frequent release of data 

versus the decennial sample survey, the estimates 

produced would have higher sampling errors.107 In 

2010, the Census Bureau no longer needed the longform sample as the ACS provided small area data in 

the same detail as the long form formerly did. It also 

continued exploring ways to improve on the reliability of those estimates with small area data users. 

In creating the ACS and seeking to improve it, the 

agency kept to its long tradition of responding to the 

growing demand of small area data users by innovating in data collection and dissemination. This book 

will look at how the Census Bureau reconfigured the 

210-year-old decennial census and transformed the 

long-form sample into the ACS. Chapter 1 sets out the 

agency’s early efforts to develop methods to meet 

users’ needs for data updated more than once every 

10 years. Chapters 2 and 3 lay out the development 

of the theory and techniques of continuous measurement and their early implementation. Research and 

evaluation of those trial runs follows in Chapter 4. 

Finally, Chapter 5 surveys the national implementation of the American Community Survey.

107 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, GPO, Washington, DC, Issued April 2009), 

pp. 1–6.
U.S. Census Bureau 21 Deaths by wards (1886) Sanitary districts (1893) Census tracts in NYC (1912) Census Bureau assumes cost for tracts and blocks First central business districts Standard metropolitan areas and urbanized areas First census county divisionsGBF/DIME created First ZIP Code data Urban Transportation Planning Package Voting district data Entire nation tracted TIGER launched American Factfinder launched ACS released 5-yr data 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Figure 10. First Publication of Small Area Data
22 U.S. Census Bureau

GLOSSARY

Definitions provided in this section come from 

the U.S. Census Bureau, “History: 2000 Census of 

Population and Housing,” Government Printing Office, 

Washington, DC, 2009, and U.S. Census Bureau, 

A Guide to State and Local Census Geography, 

Government Printing Office, ashington, DC, 1993.

Assignment area (AA). A geographic area established by the Census Bureau for a specific field operation for the census. An AA consists of one or more 

census blocks for most operations and is assigned 

to a single enumerator, lister, or other field staff to 

obtain information about the residents and living 

quarters within the boundaries of the AA. Formerly 

called an address register area and an enumeration 

district.

Block. A geographic area bounded on all sides by 

visible or nonvisible features shown on census maps. 

A block is the smallest geographic entity for which 

the Census Bureau collects and tabulates decennial 

census information.

Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS). An annual 

survey of all incorporated places and all counties conducted by the Census Bureau to determine the correct legal limits and related information as of January 

1 of the survey year. Refer to TIGER®.

Census county division (CCD). A subdivision of a 

county that is a relatively permanent statistical area 

established cooperatively by the Census Bureau and 

local government authorities. Used for presenting 

decennial census statistics in those states that do not 

have well defined and stable minor civil divisions that 

serve as local governments.

Census block. Refer to Block.

Census tract. Refer to Tract.

Enumeration district. Obsolete term. Now called an 

assignment area.

Geocode. A code that identifies a specific geographic 

entity. For example, geocodes needed to identify a 

census block for data collection are the state code, 

the county code, and the block number. 

Geocoding. The assignment of an address, structure, 

key geographic location, or business name to a location 

that is identified by one or more geographic codes.

Geographic information system (GIS). A computer 

system for the input, storage, processing, applications development, retrieval, and maintenance of 

information about the points, lines, and areas that 

represent the streets and roads, rivers, railroads, 

geographic entities, and other features on the surface 

of the Earth. Information that previously was available 

only on paper maps.

Long form (LF). The decennial census questionnaire 

containing 100 percent and sample questions; distributed to approximately 1 in 6 households.

Master address file (MAF). The MAF is a list of every 

living quarters nationwide and their geographic locations. The computer file was created by combining 

the addresses in the 1990 address control file with the 

current versions of the U.S. Postal Service delivery 

sequence file, and supplementing this with address 

information provided by state, local, and tribal governments. The MAF ties to the TIGER® database. The 

MAF is updated throughout the decade to provide 

addresses for delivery of decennial questionnaires, to 

serve as the sampling frame for the Census Bureau’s 

periodic demographic surveys, and to support other 

Census Bureau statistical programs.

Minor civil division (MCD). For demographic census 

purposes, an MCD is a primary government, such as a 

township or an administrative subdivision of a county, 

e.g., a precinct or magisterial district.

Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and 

Referencing (TIGER®). A computer database that 

contains a digital representation of all censusrequired map features (streets, roads, rivers, railroads, lakes, etc.), the related attributes for each, and 

the geographic identification codes for all entities 

used by the Census Bureau to tabulate data for the 

United States, Puerto Rico, and Island Areas. The 

TIGER® database provides a resource for the production of maps, entity headers for tabulations, and 

automated assignment of addresses to a geographic 

location in a process known as “geocoding.” TIGER® 

was preceded by the GBF/DIME (Geographic Base 

File/Dual Independent Map Encoding) files. Refer to 

Boundary and Annexation Survey and Geocode. 
U.S. Census Bureau 23

TIGER®/Line File. The computer-readable extract of 

the TIGER® database that the Census Bureau makes 

available to the public. It contains data representing the roads, railroads, bodies of water, boundaries of legal and statistical entities, and other visible 

and nonvisible features, along with their attributes 

(names, address ranges, geographic codes, census 

feature class codes, etc.).

Tract. Small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of counties delineated by local committees of 

census data users in accordance with Census Bureau 

guidelines for the purpose of collecting and presenting decennial census data. These neighborhoods 

contain between 1,000 and 8,000 people, typically 

approximately 1,700 housing units and 4,000 people. 

Tracts are designed to have homogeneous population 

characteristics, economic status, and living conditions 

at the time they are established. Census tract boundaries normally follow visible features but may follow 

governmental unit boundaries and other nonvisible 

features.

Traffic analysis zone (TAZ). An area defined by a 

metropolitan planning organization for tabulating 

transportation statistics from the census.

Urbanized area (UA). An area, consisting of one or 

more places and the adjacent urban fringe, containing at least 50,000 people and an overall population 

density of at least 1,000 people per square mile of 

land. The Census Bureau uses published criteria to 

determine the qualification and boundaries of UAs.

Voting district/legislative district (VTD). Any of a 

variety of types of areas such as election districts, 

precincts, wards, and legislative districts established 

by state and local governments for purposes of 

elections.

Zip Code (ZIP). ZIP Codes are administrative units 

established by the U.S. Postal Service for the distribution of mail. ZIP stands for zone improvement 

plan. It is a 5-, 7-, 9-, or 11-digit code assigned by the 

U.S. Postal Service to a street or portion of a street, 

a collection of streets, a business, or other establishment or structure, or a group of post office boxes to 

expedite the delivery of mail. The Census Bureau uses 

only 5-digit ZIP Codes for the addresses and address 

ranges in most 2000 Census operations.

ZIP Code tabulation area (ZCTA). A statistical entity 

developed by the Census Bureau to approximate 

the delivery area for a U.S. Postal Service 5-digit ZIP 

Code in the United States and Puerto Rico. A ZCTA 

is an aggregation of one or more census blocks that 

have the same predominant ZIP Code associated with 

the mailing addresses in the Bureau’s Master Address 

File. Thus, the Postal Service’s delivery areas have 

been adjusted to encompass whole census blocks 

so that the Census Bureau can tabulate census data 

for ZCTAs. For areas larger than 25 square miles 

for which the Census Bureau’s Master Address File 

contained no addresses with ZIP Codes, the Census 

Bureau used the first 3 digits of the ZIP Code(s) that 

serve the area or a nearby areas. A water feature that 

could not logically be assigned to a specific ZCTA 

is assigned a 3-digit code followed by “HH” to indicate that the water feature could not be assigned 

meaningfully to any adjacent land ZCTA. ZCTAs do 

not include all ZIP Codes used for mail delivery. The 

Census Bureau first created ZCTAs for the Census 

2000 Dress Rehearsal census. Refer to ZIP Code.
This page is intentionally blank.
U.S. Census Bureau 25

Chapter 1. Data Needs for a Changing Society

INTRODUCTION

At the behest of the Bureau of the Budget, in the 

early 1940s the U.S. Census Bureau began to explore 

ways to conduct a sample census of population, 

housing, and agriculture to occur between the 

constitutionally mandated decennial censuses of 

population, taken in years ending in “0.” This initiative recognized the needs of government, business, 

and the general public for population and housing 

information to supplement the benchmark decennial 

census data.1

 At the annual meeting of the American 

Statistical Association in late December 1941, Philip 

Hauser, a senior Census Bureau official, presented 

the rationale for an annual sample census, the type of 

data to be collected, and the sampling approach to 

be implemented.2

Hauser’s presentation emphasized the “urgent need 

for social and economic statistics” at the start of 

American involvement in World War II. Referring to a 

“deluge of inquiries” for postcensal population estimates for states and cities, Hauser noted that recent 

internal migration made providing such data problematic. State and local officials wanted this information to plan for the provision of public services, the 

calculation of vital statistics, and the allocation of 

funds.

Defense industries, military agencies, and civil 

defense officials wanted to be able to assess the 

effects of these large population movements on 

efforts to protect the nation’s citizens from coastal 

attacks and to mobilize war production. Further, as 

millions of young Americans began the shift from 

the labor force to military service, current labor force 

information was needed to reposition the domestic 

economy for military production. Federal housing 

agencies and private construction firms requested 

current housing statistics as an aid to providing housing for newcomers to production and administrative 

centers.

1

 “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1941, p. 41; 

“Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1942, pp. 25–26; 

and “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1944, p. 17. 2 Philip M. Hauser, “Proposed Annual Sample Census of 

Population,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, V. 37, 

No. 217, March 1942, pp. 81–88. An earlier version, “A Tentative Plan 

for Annual Census Statistics on a Sample Basis,” was presented 

at the Census Advisory Committee meeting in June 1941. National 

Archives and Records Administration, Record Group 29, Series 148, 

Box 76. I wish to thank Margo Anderson for locating this version. 

During the late 1930s, the Census Bureau was one 

of several federal agencies that began to incorporate the theory and methods of probability sampling 

into its professional activities.3 Between 1935 and 

1940, the Census Bureau hired a number of young 

employees with backgrounds in academic statistics (including Stuart Rice, Calvert Dedrick, Morris 

Hansen, William Hurwitz, and Harold Nisselson) who 

became leaders in federal statistics over the next few 

decades. A successful sample census of unemployment in 1937 convinced many doubters of the value 

of probability sampling and led to the incorporation 

of sampling into the 1940 Census.4

PROPOSED ANNUAL SAMPLE CENSUS

To meet the challenges for more up-to-date information, the Census Bureau proposed taking an annual 

sample census of population and housing (and the 

economic and business aspects of agriculture). The 

agency’s plan included obtaining information on general population characteristics as well as labor force 

and housing. General population information would 

incorporate age, sex, race, marital status, relationship to household head, and place of residence at 

the time of the last census (1940). Responses to the 

latter question would be used to estimate the flows 

and rates of migration into and out of areas. Among 

the labor force questions proposed were employment 

status, occupation, industry, and class of worker. The 

housing items were to include location; type, condition, and age of structure; occupancy status; number 

of rooms; and monthly rent. An annual sample census 

would also allow for rotating questions on and off the 

form, thereby broadening the scope of the information to be obtained.5

Hauser proposed using what he called the “migration method” to estimate the total population of the 

country, each state, and large cities (with populations of at least 100,000). Using the 1940 Census as 

a base, this method would add the number of births 

3 These included the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Reserve Board, and the Civil 

Works Administration. Refer to Joseph W. Duncan and William C.

Shelton, “Revolution in United States Government Statistics,” 

1926–1976 Washington, DC, GPO, 1978, pp. 36–38. 4 Joseph W. Duncan and William C. Shelton, “Revolution in 

United States Government Statistics,” 1926–1976 Washington, DC, 

GPO, 1978, pp. 43–46. 5 Hauser, “Annual Sample Census,” p. 82.
26 U.S. Census Bureau

and in-migrants and subtract the number of deaths 

and out-migrants. Today, we call this method “demographic analysis.”6

While Census Bureau statisticians preferred using 

a sampling scheme similar to that employed in the 

1940 Census, Hauser argued that the cost of creating a complete listing of the population made this 

impractical. Rather, he suggested using some kind of 

geographic sampling. Hauser realized that small areas 

were preferable from the statistical point of view, but 

noted larger areas were cheaper to enumerate and 

tabulate. He suggested a compromise that consisted 

of selecting areas (termed parcels) scattered throughout the country that contained about 100 people 

each. In urban areas, parcels would consist of blocks 

or parts of blocks. In the rest of the country, portions 

of enumeration districts used in the 1940 Census 

would serve as parcels. Sample parcels would be 

stratified based on geography and other characteristics, such as urban or rural, farm or nonfarm, in or out 

of a metropolitan area, renter or owner, and possibly other characteristics. Within the various strata, 

sample parcels would be selected at random. To avoid 

large sampling errors, some special universes (such 

as large institutions, prisons, army posts, and large 

new apartment buildings) would have to be sampled 

separately.7

The proposed sample census would consist of either 

2 percent or 5 percent of all the parcels in the country. Using the method outlined above, the Census 

Bureau calculated that a 5 percent sample of a city 

of one million inhabitants would produce an average 

total population estimate with a sampling error of less 

than half a percent, and that would rarely be as much 

as 1 or 2 percent in any given case. Estimated populations of smaller cities would involve proportionately 

greater error.8

The sample census would not be able to provide total 

population estimates or simple counts of characteristics for small areas; those would require a complete 

census. Hauser suggested combining the sample census with quinquennial censuses taken in years ending 

in “5” and “0.”9

6 Hauser, “Annual Sample Census,” p. 84.

7 Robert Jenkins, “Procedural History of the 1940 Census,” The 

Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin, 

Madison, WI, 1983, pp. 19–22. 8 Hauser, “Annual Sample Census,” pp. 85–87.

9 Hauser, “Annual Sample Census,” p. 87.

DEVELOPMENT AND DEMISE OF THE ANNUAL 

SAMPLE CENSUS

During the 1940s, the Census Bureau continued to 

develop its plans for a sample census. In 1941, the 

agency proposed taking a sample census of the 

Washington, DC, area both to provide local authorities with information they needed for planning and 

administration and to serve as a proving ground for 

the desired national sample census.10 Due to the outbreak of World War II, national defense agencies were 

also anxious to have the data provided by the sample 

census on the population and housing characteristics 

of Washington, DC. The local test would allow the 

Census Bureau to evaluate alternative sample designs 

and stratification methods, using the recently constituted centralized technical sampling staff.

In partnership with the Works Projects Administration, 

the Census Bureau reported in 1942 that it had 

improved its methods for identifying effective sampling units and stratification variables for use in estimating certain population and housing characteristics.11 In 1944, plans for a sample census were included 

in President Franklin Roosevelt’s “Reconversion 

Statistics Program,” and in its slimmed down successor, the “Basic Statistics Program,” the following year. 

Congress did not appropriate the requested funds in 

either year.12

In 1946, the Census Bureau argued that the end of 

World War II did not reduce the need for statistical data, stressing that the conversion of a wartime 

economy to a peacetime economy required more 

rather than less statistical information. Among other 

things, the Census Bureau argued that the economic 

and demographic shifts that took place during the 

war needed to be benchmarked and described in 

detail. While the agency’s survey responsibilities 

were increased during and after the war, the quest 

for authorization and appropriations to take a sample 

10 “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1941, p. 41.

11 Created by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1935, the Works 

Progress Administration (WPA) was the largest New Deal agency. 

By the time Congress and wartime employment ended the need 

for the WPA in 1943, it had become the nation’s largest civilian 

employer. WPA statisticians took advantage of the periodic counts 

of recipients of public relief to conduct sample surveys, often 

in cooperation with other agencies. The agency was renamed 

the Work Projects Administration in 1939. WPA statisticians 

collaborated with their Census Bureau counterparts in testing 

sampling and estimation techniques during the early 1940s. For 

more on the role of the WPA in applying probability sampling to 

human populations, refer to Duncan and Shelton, Revolution in 

Government Statistics, pp. 39–40, 47. 12 “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1942, 

pp. 25–26; “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1944, 

p. 17; and “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1945, p. 5.
U.S. Census Bureau 27

census of population went for naught. Congress hesitated at the prospect of paying for a new statistical 

program as it was trying to reduce the size and scope 

of the U.S. government.13

A MID-DECADE CENSUS

Nineteenth-Century Origins

Efforts to persuade the executive and legislative 

branches of the U.S. government that detailed statistical information describing the nation’s population 

was needed more than once every 10 years did not 

begin in the 1940s, or even in the twentieth century. 

As early as 1872, the Superintendent of the Census, 

Francis A. Walker, urged his boss, the Secretary of 

the Interior, to champion the “propriety and expediency” of taking an intermediate census in 1875. In 

addition to serving as a “noble monument” to mark 

the completion of the nation’s first century, Walker 

wrote that adding a mid-decade census in 1875 would 

go far to remedy the “positively painful” situation in 

which journalists, politicians, and philosophers found 

themselves when they tried to use census data to 

explain changes in the nation’s social, economic, or 

political situation 5 or 6 years after the census was 

taken.

Rapid change made the data obsolete a few years 

after they were published. In Walker’s view, once the 

nation experienced the benefits of a quinquennial 

census, “ . . . it is not likely that a longer period would 

ever thereafter be allowed to intervene between the 

Federal censuses.”14

Walker’s recommendation met with the approval 

of President Ulysses Grant, who included it in his 

annual messages to Congress in 1872 and 1873. 

Walker continued to press for the legislative changes 

needed to conduct a mid-decade census, but was 

ultimately unsuccessful. When Congress passed the 

law authorizing the 1880 Census in 1879, the legislation included provisions for the U.S. government 

to reimburse state governments for roughly half of 

the data collection costs they incurred if they chose 

to take a mid-decade census in 1885. Three states 

and two territories took advantage of this offer. The 

13 “Annual Report of the Secretary of Commerce,” 1946, p 3.

14 “A Compendium of the Ninth Census,” Government Printing 

Office, Washington, DC, 1872, pp. 4–5.

reimbursement provision was not repeated when the 

1890 Census was authorized.15

The attempt to institute a mid-decade census did not 

seriously reemerge until the mid-twentieth century. 

In the meantime, U.S. census operations underwent 

significant modifications. Until 1902, censuses in 

the United States were taken by temporary offices. 

Data collection, processing, and dissemination were 

all temporary functions. Once these activities were 

completed, the Census Office was disbanded until the 

next year ending in “9.” Then Congress would again 

authorize the creation of a new Census Office to take 

the next census.

Creation of the Census Bureau

Senior federal officials began urging the creation of 

a permanent Census Bureau before the Civil War.16

However, a new federal statistical agency generally 

did not rank high on the priority lists of congressional 

and administration policymakers. Then, there was the 

vexing question of what the agency would do after 

completing the statistical publications from the last 

census before it was time to begin preparing for the 

next. Intermittent efforts continued through the last 

half of the nineteenth century, but only in the late 

1890s did they begin to develop sufficient traction to 

get the job done. With the support of prominent statisticians, such as Carroll Wright and Walter Willcox, 

coupled with the persuasive presentations of former 

governor William Merriam (R-MN), appointed superintendent of the 1900 Census in 1899, proponents of 

a permanent census agency began to make inroads 

among members of Congress.

At the end of 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt 

recommended that the agency be made permanent. 

In March of the following year, Congress passed legislation establishing a permanent Census Office in the 

Department of the Interior. In addition to its already 

mandated responsibility to conduct the decennial 

censuses of population, agriculture, and manufactures, the new Census Office was also charged with 

collecting the nation’s vital statistics, overseeing an 

15 The three states were Florida, Nebraska, and Colorado; the 

territories were New Mexico and Dakota. In addition, at least nine 

other states took mid-decade censuses on their own in 1885 without 

the assistance of the federal government. Refer to Carroll D. Wright 

and William C. Hunt, “The History and Growth of the United States 

Census,” GPO, Washington, DC, 1900, pp. 58, 67. 16 Refer to J. D. B. DeBow, “Compendium of the Seventh Census,” 

Senate Printer, Washington, DC, 1854, pp. 18–19, and more generally, 

Wright and Hunt, “History and Growth of the United States Census,” 

pp. 79–84.
28 U.S. Census Bureau

annual survey of cotton production, and doing general statistical work for the federal government.17

Initially part of the Department of the Interior, the 

Census Bureau was transferred to the newly created 

Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, and 

then assigned to the Commerce Department when 

the combined department split into its two components in 1913. During the first half of the twentieth 

century, the Census Bureau established itself as the 

preeminent general statistical agency of the 

U.S. government.

The New Deal and the Census

Early in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first term, 

Census Bureau officials and several members of 

Congress suggested taking a special mid-decade 

census to provide the administration with more current population and unemployment data. This effort 

would also have allowed the agency to advance its 

research program, especially in the field of probability sampling. Applying probability sampling to 

finite populations was neither widely understood nor 

accepted in the early 1930s. Testing sampling techniques and estimation methodologies in conjunction 

with a complete census would allow census statisticians to compare the results of sample studies to a 

complete count.

A bill introduced by Representative Ralph Lozier 

(D-MO) passed in the House of Representatives but 

expired in the Senate in June 1934. Later that year the 

Central Statistical Board championed the mid-decade 

census and urged the U.S. Congress to authorize it for 

1935.18 As Anderson, author of The American Census: 

A Social History, has pointed out, the Roosevelt 

administration vetoed the idea for fiscal and political 

reasons. In addition to its cost (estimated at $13.25 

million, $215.6 million in 2010 dollars), a mid-decade 

census would have revealed that despite the administration’s efforts, unemployment was not diminishing rapidly enough. An expensive census that would 

not reflect favorably on the administration was to be 

avoided, not welcomed.19

17 Margo Anderson, “The American Census: A Social History,” 

Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1988, pp. 109–115. 18 The Central Statistical Board was established by Executive 

Order No. 6225 in July 1933 to coordinate the statistical services of 

the U.S. government in carrying out the mandates of the National 

Industrial Recovery Act (1933). “The Central Statistical Board,” 

Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 30, No. 192, 

December 1935, pp. 714–716. 19 Anderson, The American Census, pp. 175–178.

THE CENSUS BUREAU IN THE 

INFORMATION AGE

As the Census Bureau moved into the information 

age, senior officials continued to try to persuade 

the statistical community, the administration, and 

Congress of the value of a mid-decade census. In 

late 1952, the agency’s deputy director, A. Ross 

Eckler, urged the adoption of a mid-decade census 

at a special meeting of the New York chapter of the 

American Statistical Association. Acknowledging 

that the nation’s programs of defense and foreignaid spending tended to overshadow the population 

and housing census program, Eckler persevered 

by pointing out that governmental and privatesector uses of statistical information had increased 

significantly since the 1930s and 1940s. He added 

that quinquennial censuses had become the 

norm in most other fields of census taking such 

as the censuses of agriculture, mineral industries, 

governments, manufacturing, and transportation. He 

also emphasized the dramatic, roughly 50 percent 

increase in the number of primary school children. 

EEckler argued that this huge cohort, now known 

as the “baby boom,” would generate dramatically 

increased requirements for information that could 

be best garnered by implementing a mid-decade 

census.20 Unfortunately for supporters of this 

program, the competition for the estimated cost of 

the quinquennial census, $22 to $24 million (between 

$181 and $197 million in 2010 dollars), proved too 

powerful to resist. The Watkins Committee put it this 

way, just over a year later:

“There is a demand for a simplified population census, covering a few principal items, at the midpoint 

of each decade; but the Committee does not believe 

that the increased benefits would justify the cost . . . 

Research on low-cost sampling methods for estimating population for small areas or for problem areas 

impresses the Committee as more important at this 

stage than provision for a mid-decade census.”21

Further efforts to promote a mid-decade census 

stalled for the remainder of the 1950s. However, the 

20 A. Ross Eckler, “Possibilities for a Quinquennial Census,” paper 

presented at a special meeting of the New York Chapter of the 

American Statistical Association on December 3, 1952. 21 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Appraisal of Census Programs: 

Report of the Intensive Review Committee to the Secretary 

of Commerce,” GPO, Washington, DC, 1954, p. 3. The Watkins 

Committee, named after its chairman, Ralph J. Watkins, was 

formally titled “The Intensive Review Committee to the Secretary 

of Commerce.” Named by Commerce Secretary Sinclair Weeks in 

October 1953, the committee’s charge was to evaluate and make 

recommendations concerning the Census Bureau’s major programs.
U.S. Census Bureau 29

1960s began with Rep. Stewart Udall (D-AZ) urging 

that a mid-decade census be taken in 1965.

Throughout the decade, legislation supporting this 

goal was introduced in almost every legislative session. In the fall of 1961 and the spring of 1962, hearings on a mid-decade census were held in Chicago, 

Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC, but 

they appear to have generated little momentum.22

State and local officials, city planners and housing 

officials, and experts in population, education, housing, marketing, and similar fields voiced “strong support for the legislation,” but the Census Bureau and 

its allies were unable to persuade their colleagues 

in the administration and in Congress to fund the 

program.23

OPTIONS FOR A MID-DECADE CENSUS

In a documentary submission, the Census Bureau 

proposed four options for the type and amount of 

data to be collected in a mid-decade census:

Level one consisted of a complete population count 

of the nation, including for each individual, the following six characteristics: name, address, relationship 

to head of household, sex, age, and race. The agency 

estimated this option would cost between $55 million and $60 million ($405 and $442 million in 2010 

dollars).

Level two included all the information collected in 

level one plus basic housing characteristics (type of 

unit, condition, occupancy status, number of rooms, 

tenure, and plumbing facilities). The estimated cost of 

this option was between $70 million and $75 million 

($516 and $553 million in 2010 dollars).

Level three was a 25 percent sample of the population that would provide about the same level of detail 

as the 1960 Census for both population and housing 

items. Reliable cross tabulations could be published 

for states, counties, metropolitan areas, and larger 

cities. “Fairly reliable” population estimates would be 

produced for areas of 25,000 or more. The Census 

Bureau estimated this option would cost between 

22 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Government Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, Hearings on “Mid-Decade Census,” Part 1, Chicago, IL, 

Oct. 25–26, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961; Part 2, Los Angeles, CA, 

Nov. 15–16, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961; Part 3, New York, NY, 

Nov. 29–30, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961; Part 4, Washington, DC, 

May 1–2, 4, 1962, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1962. 23 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Hearing 

on “Mid-Decade Census,” May 4–5, 12, 1965, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 

1965, p. 2.

$45 million and $50 million ($332 and $368 million in 

2010 dollars). By reducing the sample size to 10 percent, the cost would drop by about $10 million ($74 

million in 2010 dollars), but reasonable population 

estimates would be produced only for geographic 

areas of 75,000 or more.

The level four option was largely a replication of the 

1960 Census in scope, content, and sampling ratio. 

It would provide complete count information for all 

geographic areas, complete counts for limited population and housing characteristics, and a 25 percent 

sample for population and housing characteristics 

similar to those obtained from the 1960 Census. 

This option was the most expensive and would cost 

between $100 million and $110 million ($737 and $810 

million in 2010 dollars).24

RESPONSE OF THE BUDGET BUREAU 

At an estimated cost of between $45 million and $110 

million ($332 and $810 million in 2010 dollars), the 

proposed mid-decade census faced stiff opposition 

from the Bureau of the Budget. The Budget Bureau’s 

representative, Dr. Raymond Bowman, testified that 

the main arguments for a mid-decade census held 

that the nation was experiencing a very high rate of 

change in the size, distribution, and characteristics of 

the American population.

Similar changes were taking place in the nation’s 

housing supply. Only a census could provide the 

needed local area data. A census that provided age, 

race, and sex or one that produced basic population 

and housing characteristics would not be sufficient. 

The Bureau of the Budget concluded that only a 

complete census that included family composition, 

income, educational attainment, labor force status 

and unemployment status, and housing characteristics would meet the needs of most witnesses.25

Bowman agreed that a decennial census was necessary to have uniform data for all areas to make 

interarea comparisons possible and to provide benchmarks for intercensal estimates. However, there were 

several reasons his agency believed that alternatives 

to a mid-decade census made more efficient use of 

the available technical methods. One of the main 

24 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Government Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, Hearings on “Mid-Decade Census,” Part 1, Chicago, IL, 

Oct. 25–26, 1961, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961, pp. 2–3. 25 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Government Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, Hearings on “Mid-Decade Census,” Part 4, Washington, DC, 

May 1, 2, and 4, 1962, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1962, pp. 548–550.
30 U.S. Census Bureau

justifications for a mid-decade census was the rapidity with which changes in population and employment were then taking place in American society. 

While the Budget Bureau supported the development 

of more prompt and efficient techniques of obtaining 

population counts and characteristics, a mid-decade 

census would not adequately meet the expressed 

needs of many local and state officials. Since many 

areas change only slowly over a decade, it would 

be wasteful to collect information for all areas when 

only some vitally needed it. Using the decennial 

census as a benchmark, the most efficient method 

of obtaining both national and local estimates was 

by developing specially directed sample surveys. 

The Budget Bureau encouraged the Census Bureau 

to develop and implement such surveys as needed. 

Finally Bowman argued that special surveys were 

also preferred when the collection of certain highly 

detailed data was necessary and conducting a complete census was not feasible. The Budget Bureau 

believed that new programs often called for new and 

expanded statistical data, but also felt that new federal programs did not create a pressing need for data 

that could only come from a mid-decade census.26

Bowman offered several examples of the kinds of 

statistical programs his agency would support. He 

suggested the Census Bureau expand and strengthen 

its population estimates and projections programs. 

This would involve producing annual population 

estimates for the 200 largest metropolitan areas and 

for other areas of special interest; helping states and 

localities develop their own population estimates 

programs; expanding methodological research aimed 

at improving state and area estimates; increasing 

the detail of population characteristics for state and 

area estimates; producing population projections for 

states and selected areas; and developing a series of 

analytical surveys and studies relating critical demographic, economic, and social trends to changing 

birth rates, educational attainment levels, population 

mobility, and employment.27

The second recommendation focused on the creation 

of an intensive program of labor force surveys and 

analysis aimed at improving the data needed for broad 

national policy formulation and furnishing information to meet current local requirements. This initiative 

26 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Government Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, Hearings on “Mid-Decade Census,” Part 4, Washington, DC, 

May 1, 2, and 4, 1962, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess., 1962, pp. 550–551. 27 Ibid.

would involve implementing a once per year increase 

in the size of the Current Population Survey by up 

to 400 percent to produce improved estimates for 

several categories of the employed and unemployed 

population, to develop labor force surveys for metropolitan areas over the decade between censuses, to 

improve monthly estimates of the characteristics of 

employed and unemployed people at the state and 

local levels (which in the 1960s were based largely on 

administrative records),28 to implement a program of 

research and experimentation in labor force measurement both nationally and for selected local areas, to 

examine reasons for entering and leaving the workforce, and to develop extensive surveys of such subjects as characteristics of the unemployed, frequency 

and methods of job seeking and job changing, and 

occupational mobility.29

Bowman’s third series of recommendations dealt 

with expanding the housing statistics program to 

guide national policy formation, to assist communities in formulating local housing and urban renewal 

programs, and to provide business and industry with 

data to be used for operational purposes. Among 

the examples he gave were the establishment of a 

components of change survey to be conducted every 

5 years that would provide national data and information for metropolitan areas (separated into central 

cities and suburbs) covering losses and additions to 

the housing supply, the characteristics of housing 

units involved in change, and changes in the rental 

rates, value, and condition of housing. Bowman also 

suggested expanding the quarterly vacancy survey 

to include a selected group of metropolitan areas and 

developing a program to assist localities in taking 

their own vacancy surveys, transforming a one-time 

survey of the sales prices of new housing into an 

annual series that also included more information 

on home purchasers, upgrading currently available 

data on mortgage financing to include interest rates, 

discounts, fees, the volume of loan commitments, 

secondary financing, and mortgage terms, and developing an ongoing program to provide information on 

residential land costs, journey to work, and modes 

and cost of transportation and their impact on the 

housing market.30

28 Administrative records refer to individual records concerning 

people, companies, and/or geographic locations that are contained 

in files collected and maintained by administrative or program 

agencies and commercial entities. 29 Ibid., pp. 551–552.

30 Ibid., p. 552.
U.S. Census Bureau 31

In response to a question, Mr. Bowman said that the 

program he recommended would cost approximately 

$68 million ($491 million in 2010 dollars) more than 

the Census Bureau’s current expenditures over a full 

decade.31

SCAMMON’S PROPOSAL

Following the failure to pass mid-decade census 

legislation in 1962, the measure’s supporters introduced similar legislation in each of the next 3 years. 

In a letter to the chairman of the House Committee 

on Post Office and Civil Service, Tom Murray (D-TN), 

Census Bureau Director Richard Scammon noted 

that “nearly all of the witnesses who testified [at the 

1961–1962 hearings] favored a mid-decade census.” 

He pointed out that business people supported the 

measure because they used census information to 

locate factories, to plan production, and to develop 

marketing programs. State and local government 

representatives needed census data to keep abreast 

of rapidly changing demands for public services such 

as schools, hospitals, public utilities, recreational facilities, and traffic control. The housing industry needed 

current information on the housing situation for metropolitan areas and their component communities. 

Federal officials closely followed developments in 

individual metropolitan areas, redevelopment areas, 

river basins, and other small areas. Many witnesses 

testified that they “depend[ed] on up-to-date benchmarks in making their own projections. They stated 

that the surveys on projections which they make to 

meet specific needs depend very heavily on the validity and recency of census materials.”32

Scammon also pointed out that testimony from the 

representatives of the Bureau of the Budget supported 

an alternative program of sample surveys and estimates. Some parts of this program were approved in 

FY 1964 and others were requested in FY 1965. He 

admitted that sample surveys and estimates would 

produce information that became available annually or 

more often. However, that information would not cover 

most cities, counties, or census tracts. Scammon concluded that the information provided by the Bureau of 

the Budget’s proposal would meet somewhat different 

needs “from those that would be met by a quinquennial census. Neither method is an adequate substitute 

for the other.”33

31 Ibid., pp. 556–557.

32 Letter (draft) from Richard Scammon to Tom Murray, March 16, 

1964. 33 Ibid.

MID-DECADE CENSUS AND THE GREAT 

SOCIETY

In March 1965, acting Census Bureau Director Ross 

Eckler urged the Secretary of Commerce to support 

H.R. 1966 calling for a mid-decade census to take 

place in the fall of 1966.34 Given the government’s 

concern “with voting rights, with the war on poverty, 

with depressed areas . . . the time has passed when 

the Nation can depend on a census taken every 10 

years.”35 In May 1965, the Subcommittee on Census 

and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and 

Civil Service held another hearing on the mid-decade 

census. In his opening remarks, Representative 

Arnold Olsen (D-MT) stated that since the 1961–1962 

hearings, “the need for a mid-decade census, in our 

opinion, has become even more crucial. We simply 

cannot visualize how we can get the President where 

he wants to be with the Great Society, nor how the 

legislation we are now passing can best work, if the 

program is to be based on obsolete statistics.”36

He noted that the debate on the education bill 

(H.R. 2362) had to be based on statistics that went 

back to 1959. With the antipoverty bill (H.R. 11377), 

“the same situation prevails. The formula calls for 

allocations to the states based on ‘the number 

of related children under 18 years of age living in 

families with incomes of less than $1,000’” ($6,900 

in 2010 dollars). Data from the 1960 Census would 

be used because “There are no more recent data 

available. It’s as simple as that.”37

Olsen pointed out that while the Bureau of the 

Budget had recommended against the proposed 

mid-decade census, “it is the Congress who has the 

responsibility for legislation in these important matters and who makes the appropriations.” He added 

that members of Congress were also “accountable to 

the people for the success of these programs and the 

cost too.”38

34 Letter (draft) from A. Ross Eckler to John T. Conner, Secretary 

of Commerce, March 22, 1965. Eckler suggested fall 1966 for the 

census because it required 15 months lead time, adding that a fall 

census would provide data in the spring and summer of 1967, 3 1/2 

years earlier than the results of the 1970 Census. 35 Ibid. H.R. 1966 was sponsored by Rep. Arnold Olsen (D-MT) 

and was identical to five other bills pending in the House of 

Representatives supporting a mid-decade census. 36 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Hearing 

on “Mid-Decade Census,” May 4, 5, and 12, 1965, 89th Cong., 

1st Sess., 1965, p. 2. In the absence of Harley Staggers (D-WV), 

chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Olsen chaired the hearing. 37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.
32 U.S. Census Bureau

Testimony during the hearing followed the pattern of 

the earlier hearings, with many witnesses supporting 

the mid-decade census and the Bureau of the Budget 

opposing it. Again, Bowman represented the Budget 

Bureau and opposed the mid-decade census.39 His 

main argument was that “the same amount of money 

will produce better results if spent in a different way 

than that of taking the census . . . ” The subcommittee 

did not agree with the administration’s position and 

concluded “that a complete census enumeration is the 

only fully effective solution to the need for statistics 

on the people of the Nation which exists today . . . ” 

Both the subcommittee and the full committee voted 

for the mid-decade census bill, renumbered as H.R. 

6183, but the administration’s opposition, together 

with that of the Republican minority, were sufficient to 

doom the bill’s prospects in the full House. 40, 41, 42

A mid-decade census plan (H.R. 7659) proposed by 

Rep. William Green (D-PA) in 1967 differed from its 

predecessors in several significant respects.43 Earlier 

plans generally proposed taking a census within a 

year or two of the time the legislation was signed into 

law and every 10 years thereafter. Renewed interest 

in a mid-decade census during the 1960s did not 

translate into successful legislation until the following 

decade. It became apparent that support for the 

mid-decade census tended to grow in the first half 

of the decade, then waned as the decennial census 

year approached. Green’s bill skipped the middecade census in the 1960s and proposed beginning 

the process in 1975. This would allow the Census 

Bureau sufficient time to plan the details of the 1970 

Census and coordinate those plans with the longer 

range preparations for the 1975 Census. The draft 

legislation did not envision the mid-decade census as 

39 Ibid., pp. 40–55, 141–146.

40 Ibid., pp. 146–147.

41 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census 

and Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 

“Mid-Decade Censuses of Population, Unemployment, and 

Housing,” Report No. 780, August 12, 1965, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 

1965, p. 2. 42 Ibid., p. 16. The minority position was that a mid-decade 

census was “both unnecessary and very poorly timed.” In addition 

to supporting the Budget Bureau’s opposition, the minority also 

pointed to the “vital needs of national defense making more 

demands on our budget,” a reference to the rising cost of the 

conflict in Vietnam, and concluded that “we must begin using 

prudence in spending the taxpayers’ dollar, and the rejection of this 

bill would be a good place to start.” 43 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, hearing 

on “Mid-Decade Census,” April 25–26, 1967, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 

1967, p. 3. Identical bills were introduced by eleven members of 

Congress and related bills by three others. William J. Green III won a 

special election in April 1964 to fill the vacancy caused by the death 

of his father. He was reelected six times and chose not to run in 

1976, instead running for a Senate seat against H. John Heinz. Green 

lost that race.

a mere repetition of the decennial effort but offered 

the Secretary of Commerce substantial leeway in 

designing the new census. It also encouraged the 

Secretary to take currently available information into 

consideration in designing the mid-decade census 

and to “make maximum use of sampling procedures 

consistent with statistical needs.”44 The statement 

of purpose and need accompanying the proposed 

legislation pointed out that progress was being made 

in developing methods for “obtaining some of the 

more critical data obtained in decennial censuses 

on an even more current basis than once every 5 

years. This includes population and family income 

distributions for all counties in the United States each 

year, based largely upon information provided in 

income tax returns.”45

THE BUDGET BUREAU CHANGES ITS MIND

The acting Secretary of Commerce, A.B. Trowbridge, 

sent the committee a statement making it clear 

that the decennial census would remain the most 

important demographic benchmark and that the 

mid-decade census should be seen as updating the 

basic census and “filling in voids that develop during 

the decade . . . ”46 The Census Bureau’s openness 

to the expanded use of sampling, population estimates, and possibly of administrative records, were 

sufficiently reassuring to the Bureau of the Budget 

to help turn around the agency’s former opposition 

to the mid-decade census and to obtain its support 

for Green’s legislation. In previous testimony, Census 

Bureau representatives described a number of 

options to subcommittee members but underscored 

that some kind of complete count would be needed 

to provide data for small geographic areas down to 

the tract level. Raymond Bowman, testifying once 

again on behalf of the Budget Bureau, stated at the 

outset that H.R. 7659 and several identical bills were 

“consistent with the administration’s objectives and 

are supported by the Bureau of the Budget.” He drew 

particular attention to the legislation’s injunction to 

“make maximum use of sampling procedure consistent with statistical needs.” This legislative language 

“has great significance and is a major reason for 

the Bureau of the Budget’s support . . . ” Bowman 

emphasized that the bill “permits maximum flexibility 

44 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, hearing 

on “Mid-Decade Census,” April 25–26, 1967, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 

1967, p. 2. 45 Ibid., pp. 2–3.

46 Ibid.
U.S. Census Bureau 33

in conducting a mid-decade statistical effort in order 

to insure that high priority data needs are met in the 

most efficient and effective manner.”47 While future 

data needs “may require a complete enumeration,” 

he thought it unwise to assume the need for one. 

He admonished subcommittee members that it was 

“essential to sound administration of the statistical 

system that options remain open—both as to content 

and coverage.”48

To emphasize the importance of cost-effectiveness 

and flexibility, Rep. Green proposed an amendment 

to his bill removing housing and unemployment from 

the census and focusing solely on population. A second Green amendment prohibited using population 

data from any mid-decade census for apportionment 

or redistricting.49 Green’s amended bill passed in the 

House of Representatives in August 1967.

The Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service convened a hearing on its version of the 

legislation (S. 1997) in February 1968. Census Bureau 

Director Eckler began his testimony by pointing out 

that “the need for a census more often than once 

every 10 years is continually brought home to us 

in the Bureau of the Census by our inability to provide up-to-date information to meet many needs of 

Government agencies and the Congress.” He continued by noting that “When the National Advisory 

Commission on Civil Disorders needed census data 

to portray the situation within individual large cities, 

most of what we could supply was information collected in 1960, which no longer reflects the present 

situation.” A series of special censuses the Census 

Bureau had taken between 1960 and 1967, in eight 

major cities, revealed that the 20 million people 

added to the U.S. population since 1960 had not been 

evenly distributed across the country. In each of the 

cities counted, “we found that the population of these 

cities declined, that their suburban areas increased, 

and that the Negro population in the central cities increased while the number of white residents 

declined. There are indications that this has occurred 

47 Ibid., p. 5.

48 Ibid., pp. 5–6.

49 U.S. House of Representatives, “Mid-Decade Censuses of 

Population, Unemployment, and Housing,” H. Report No. 480, 

July 10, 1967, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1967, pp. 2–4.

in many other cities as well.”50 Eckler added that the 

population and housing census was the only one of 

the regular censuses taken on a decennial basis in 

the United States. The others (agriculture, manufactures, mineral industries, transportation, business, 

and governments) were all taken every 5 years. 

Indeed a number of other countries have established 

their population censuses on a 5-year basis including 

Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, the United 

Kingdom, Ireland, Turkey, and Denmark. He urged 

the senators to support the bill and recommended 

that the census cover unemployment and housing 

(which had been removed from the House bill) as 

well as population.51 For the remainder of his testimony, Eckler responded to inquiries about whether 

the questions invaded respondents’ privacy, whether 

responses should be voluntary or mandatory, the 

appropriateness of punishments for nonresponse, 

and census costs. Many of the other witnesses also 

supported the mid-decade census. However, the bill 

languished in committee and was not voted on by the 

full Senate. As a result, the Kerner Commission and 

the federal agencies responsible for implementing 

and evaluating the progress of the Great Society laws 

and programs—such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the war on poverty, the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

and the Social Security Act of 1965—continued to use 

1960 Census data until 1970 Census data began to 

become available in the spring of 1971.

50 U.S. Senate, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 

Hearing on “Mid-Decade Census,” February 14, 1968, 90th Cong., 

2nd Sess., 1968, pp. 4–5. The cities in which special censuses were 

taken were Buffalo, NY; Rochester, NY; Providence, RI; New Haven, 

CT; Louisville, KY; Cleveland, OH; Des Moines, IA; and Wilmington, 

DE. The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders was known 

as the “Kerner Commission” after the name of its chairman, Otto 

Kerner, Jr., Governor of Illinois. President Lyndon Johnson appointed 

the commission in July 1967 to investigate the causes of the 1967 

race riots in the United States and to provide recommendations 

for the future. In earlier testimony Eckler was more specific. He 

noted that between 1960 and 1964, West Virginia continued to lose 

population, as it had done during the 1950s. Nevada experienced the 

highest population growth rate (43 percent), followed by Arizona (21 

percent). California added the largest number of people (2.4 million). 

The population of Huntington Beach, CA, was 4.5 times larger in 

1962 than it had been in 1960. Population growth within states was 

also uneven. The farming population declined by 2.7 million between 

1960 and 1964. Most of the nation’s increase in population occurred 

in the suburbs, which accounted for three-fourths of the 78 percent 

population growth that took place in metropolitan areas. U.S. House 

of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, hearing on “Mid-Decade 

Census,” May 4, 5, and 12, 1965, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 1965, p. 38. 51 Ibid., pp. 5–7.
34 U.S. Census Bureau

THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION AND THE 

MID-DECADE CENSUS

Similar bills were introduced in 1969, 1971, 1972, 1973, 

1975, and 1976, and hearings were held in 1971, 1973, 

1975, and 1976 by the Census Bureau’s oversight subcommittee. In testimony delivered in 1971, the Census 

Bureau’s director, George Hay Brown, described four 

options for taking a mid-decade census and provided 

rough cost estimates for each:

Option 1 consisted of a 100 percent count of the population together with each person’s name, address, 

relation to household head, gender, race, presence of 

Spanish origin, and age. Data products would cover 

all levels of census geography down to the tract level 

for metropolitan areas and to the enumeration district 

for aggregation to specialized areas such as voting 

and school districts. The Census Bureau estimated 

that this option would cost between $150 million and 

$160 million ($808 and $861 million in 2010 dollars).52

Option 2 included the population characteristics in 

option 1 plus basic housing characteristics such as 

type of unit, condition, occupancy status, number of 

rooms, and tenure. Data products would be available 

for the same geographic entities as in option 1, and 

the project would cost between $165 million and $175 

million ($888 and $942 million in 2010 dollars).

Option 3 consisted of a 25 percent sample of households and would contain the same questions (both 

100 percent and sample that came to be known as 

the short form and the long form) that were asked 

in the 1970 census of population and housing. The 

Census Bureau estimated that it could produce population counts and characteristics for states, metropolitan areas, and cities and counties with populations 

over 25,000, with sampling errors of less than 3 percent. This level of accuracy would not be available for 

areas under 25,000. The Census Bureau estimated 

the cost at between $170 million and $180 million 

($915 and $969 million in 2010 dollars).

Option 4 replicated the 1970 census of population 

and housing and would include both short- and 

long-form questions. The data would be tabulated 

and published at the tract level and similar levels for 

nonmetropolitan areas. The Census Bureau estimated 

that the cost of replication of the 1970 census in 1975 

52 An enumeration district consisted of one or more census 

blocks assigned to a single enumerator, whose job was to collect 

information about the residents and living quarters in that district. 

This term is now obsolete and has been replaced by the term, 

“assignment area.”

would amount to between $230 million and $240 

million ($1.2 and 1.3 billion in 2010 dollars).53

These options were quite similar to those presented 

at congressional hearings a decade earlier, but the 

estimated costs had risen substantially.

Since the last major hearings on the mid-decade 

census in 1967–1968, the Nixon administration succeeded the Johnson administration. The new administration was less supportive of Johnson’s Great 

Society programs and was not as solicitous toward 

those its predecessor was trying to assist. The Nixon 

administration focused more on the expansion of 

law enforcement programs and on “Vietnamizing” 

the Vietnam conflict. Support for the mid-decade 

census had definitely waned since the last years of 

the Johnson administration. In his 1971 testimony, 

Census Bureau Director Brown clearly conveyed 

the administration’s view, though he recognized the 

increasing demand for small-area data. He stated 

that the Census Bureau was engaged in “extensive 

work” on the use of administrative records to fill 

the void. In contrast to Brown’s statement, former 

director A. Ross Eckler testified, “It is now about 

10 years since my first presentation of this subject 

to a different chairman and a completely different 

subcommittee . . . It is my sincere conviction that the 

case for a mid-decade census at this time is even 

stronger than it was in 1967.” In a recent analysis 

of the “existing statutes governing the distribution 

of funds or the making of grants,” which Eckler 

conducted in his relatively new role as a statistical 

consultant, he found that population was one of the 

factors most frequently used to distribute funds. 

“On an annual basis, the cost of [a] mid-decade 

census would be well below 1 percent of the funds 

distributed by the Federal Government on the basis 

of population data.”54 Rep. Charles Wilson (D-CA) 

said that “our census subcommittee has heard from 

hundreds of witnesses over a period of 2 and a half 

years without hearing one single witness oppose the 

mid-decade census.” While he might have exaggerated a little about the unanimity of these witnesses, 

Wilson did express great disappointment and 

perplexity at the administration’s opposition, especially since he thought that Secretary of Commerce 

Maurice Stans expressed the need for a mid-decade 

53 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Hearing 

on “Mid-Decade Census,” May 18, June 2 and 10, 1971, 92nd Cong., 

1st Sess., 1971, pp. 127–129. 54 Ibid., p. 140.
U.S. Census Bureau 35

census and that there was very little opposition to 

it in Congress. Given the administration’s position, 

Wilson said there was little reason for Congress to 

“consider preparing a bill and submitting it for consideration by the committee.”55

To eliminate any uncertainty at the Commerce 

Department about the administration’s policy on 

the mid-decade census, the director of the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB), George Shultz, 

wrote to Secretary Stans the following month stating 

that “As matters now stand, the Administration will 

not support a full-scale mid-decade census or any 

of the various large-scale alternatives which have 

recently been proposed or considered by the Bureau 

of the Census which would entail costs ranging 

anywhere near $100 million” ($538 million in 2010 

dollars). Instead, Shultz proposed vigorous pursuit 

of modest-sized sample surveys coupled with “the 

maximum feasible use of administrative records, at an 

estimated total cost not to exceed $40 million” ($215 

million in 2010 dollars).56

The General Accounting Office (GAO) had already 

contacted the Census Bureau to ask for documentation of the estimated costs of the mid-decade census options.57 In response to earlier comments from 

the GAO, a member of his staff informed Associate 

Director for Demographic Fields Conrad Taeuber that 

the nearest alternative to the mid-decade census that 

the Census Bureau had already priced was a proposal for a 1972 large-scale sample survey of 3 million 

housing units using the 15 percent questionnaire from 

the 1970 census. Originally planned for 1969, this 

survey was estimated to cost $32 million at that time 

($190 million in 2010 dollars) and would probably 

have come close to the $40 million ($238 million in 

2010 dollars) cost ceiling noted by the OMB.58 Such a 

survey would not meet the small-area data needs of 

many mid-decade census supporters. However, given 

the cost limitations placed on the Census Bureau, the 

staff member suggested this was the kind of program 

the Census Bureau should investigate.

55 Ibid, p. 129. Wilson inserted into the record an article by 

Jack Rosenthal of the New York Times noting that “the Nixon 

Administration withdrew its support today [June 10, 1971] for any 

kind of special census in 1975” and quoted an OMB official as saying 

that “‘budgetary reasons were the principal factor’ in the policy 

change.” See, Ibid., pp. 140–141. 56 Letter from George P. Shultz to Maurice Stans, July 13, 1971.

57 General Accounting Office, Report to the Subcommittee on 

Census and Statistics, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 

“Bureau of the Census: Cost Estimates for Mid-Decade Census 

Proposals,” July 27, 1971. 58 Memorandum from Theodore Clemence to Conrad Taeuber, 

March 26, 1971.

The following year, the Census Bureau responded 

to questions from the Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics on the sampling errors and data characteristics of mid-decade sample surveys covering a 

10 percent sample, a 20 percent sample, and a 25 

percent sample of addresses.

Census Bureau Director Brown stated that a 10 percent sample would produce estimates of the characteristics of the population of adequate accuracy for 

areas of 100,000 inhabitants or more. A 20 percent 

sample would yield good quality data for areas of 

50,000 or more inhabitants; and a 25 percent sample 

would do the same for areas of 25,000 or more. The 

latter was estimated to cost about $170 million ($887 

million in 2010 dollars), while the 10 percent sample 

would cost about $100 million ($522 million in 2010 

dollars).59

A 2 PERCENT SAMPLE CENSUS

Within several months, the discussion on how to 

provide intercensal small-area data had reverted to 

a much less expensive option—a 2 percent national 

sample survey coupled with “full-scale use” of administrative records.60 By the early 1970s, administrative 

records research seemed to hold much promise for 

providing “reasonably reliable information on population totals for areas above 250,000 [inhabitants], 

and counts of satisfactory quality down to areas 

of 50,000.” Integrating sample survey data with 

information from administrative records appeared 

to offer an opportunity “to overcome some of the 

major limitations of that program [a sample survey].”61

However, the available documents did not specify the 

type of administrative records research under consideration nor did they indicate how administrative 

records data would be combined with those of the 

survey.62

The planned sample survey would include 2 percent 

of the households in the United States and 2 percent 

of the individuals in large group quarters. The Census 

59 Memorandum from George H. Brown to Charles H. Wilson, 

March 22, 1972. 60 Background paper, “Program Proposal for Mid-Decade Two 

Percent Sample Survey,” sent from Robert L. Hagan (deputy director, 

U.S. Census Bureau) to Mr. Peterson (assistant administrator, Social 

and Economic Statistics Administration), July 14, 1972. 61 Ibid.

62 Part of the research seems to have pertained to geographic 

coding of administrative records. Refer to memorandum from 

Joseph Wright, Jr., deputy administrator, Social and Economic 

Statistics Administration (SESA), to James Gord, General Counsel’s 

Office, DOC, April 26, 1972. Birth and death records were among 

those considered; other candidates would have included driver’s 

license records, income tax returns, and social security records. 
36 U.S. Census Bureau

Bureau expected that the survey would supply population characteristics that administrative records could 

not provide. The sample survey was to be designed to 

improve the population estimates for large areas such 

as states and major metropolitan areas (places with 

populations of 500,000 or more). The sample survey 

also was expected to assist in population estimation 

for smaller places (for example, reducing estimation 

error by regressing the population estimate on the 

survey results) and for subareas of larger cities for 

which administrative records are not useful. Finally, 

the sample survey was expected to provide a mechanism for evaluating the population estimates produced by the administrative records program.

The Census Bureau was satisfied that the sample 

survey itself would provide estimates “of adequate 

reliability” for cities and other political units of 

500,000 or more. It was thought that for subareas 

of cities of 100,000 to 200,000, larger errors could 

be tolerated. For characteristics, only simple distributions would be available for areas containing total 

populations of 50,000 to 100,000 people. On the 

other hand, the agency felt it could not make reliable 

estimates for places with less than 50,000 inhabitants nor city subareas with less than 100,000 or 

200,000. This grouping would rule out sample data 

for any tract or even moderate-sized neighborhoods. 

A 1 percent sample would produce a range of reliable data only for areas of 500,000 or more, while 

estimated population totals and simple distributions 

were all that would appear for areas of 100,000 to 

500,000. A 1 percent survey would probably cost 

more than $30 million ($156 million in 2010 dollars). 

A 2 percent sample household survey was estimated 

to cost about $43.5 million ($227 million in 2010 

dollars), as opposed to a 25 percent sample, which 

would cost about $170 million ($887 million in 2010 

dollars), or a 10 percent sample which would cost 

around $100 million ($522 million in 2010 dollars).63

For the remainder of 1972 and early 1973, Census 

Bureau staff developed the details of sample design, 

tabulation plans, and address list improvement for a 

mid-decade sample survey. By April 1973, the Census 

Bureau reduced its proposed sample size to 1 million 

households, at an estimated cost of $45 million ($221 

63 Background aper, “Program Proposal for Mid-Decade Two 

Percent Sample Survey,” sent from Robert L. Hagan (deputy director, 

U.S. Census Bureau) to William H. Peterson (assistant administrator, 

Social and Economic Statistics Administration), July 14, 1972.

million in 2010 dollars).64 This approach would provide cross-tabulations of characteristics for areas of 

250,000 or more and summary statistics for areas of 

50,000 or more. The administration’s proposal did 

not persuade the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service, which submitted a bill (H.R. 7762) calling for 

a 25 percent national survey at an estimated cost of 

$200 million ($982 million in 2010 dollars).65 As had 

occurred previously, the bill passed in the House but 

died in the Senate. The tumultuous events surrounding the resignation of President Nixon in August 1974 

appear to have played a role in the delay of consideration of conducting a mid-decade sample survey 

until 1975. In May of that year, Census Bureau Director 

Vincent Barabba testified about various proposals 

for a mid-decade census at a hearing of the Census 

Bureau’s oversight subcommittee. Rep. Patricia 

Schroeder (D-CO), chairwoman of the subcommittee, stated that one reason the mid-decade count 

had been “around for 14 years and . . . was suddenly 

changed from mid-decade census to a survey was 

the fear of reapportionment.” She asked if “anyone 

ever said anything about that?” Barabba replied that 

the question of whether there would be an apportionment following a mid-decade census was one 

of the issues that might have to be addressed but 

that the Census Bureau had no expertise in this area. 

Rep. Schroeder pointed out that another issue was 

the comparative cost of a census versus a survey. 

The question is “whether or not it’s worth the additional money and time to do the census” rather than 

a survey. If the figures from the mid-decade effort 

were to be used for revenue sharing or other federal 

programs, Schroeder wondered whether relying on a 

survey would be at all “fair.” She continued, “Wouldn’t 

you have to do a full census to really make the figures 

usable?”66 In response, Barabba noted that a 25 percent sample survey would provide estimated population totals for areas containing 25,000 or more 

people, but would not provide data for places under 

25,000, which account for about 41 percent of the 

U.S. population. Associate Director for Demographic 

Fields Daniel Levine added that for places of 50,000 

or more, the results of 25 percent sample probably 

64 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Hearing 

on “Mid-Decade Census,” April 9, 1973, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1973, 

p. 2.65 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Post Office and 

Civil Service, Report to Accompany H.R. 7762, Report No. 93-246, 

June 4, 1973, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1973, p. 15. 66 U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Census 

and Population of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, 

Hearing on “Proposals for a Mid-Decade Census,” May 16, 1975, 94th 

Cong., 1st Sess., 1975, p. 3.
U.S. Census Bureau 37

could be used directly for revenue sharing purposes. 

For places of 25,000 to 50,000, the Census Bureau 

would probably have to use synthetic techniques to 

estimate total population size, and the reliability of 

those estimates would be much less than for those 

whose populations were greater than 50,000. Finally, 

for places with populations below 10,000, even synthetic estimates would have a wide range of error on 

average. Barabba added that this was the tradeoff 

between relying on a sample rather than taking a 

full census. With the sample, “you will not have as 

good data for the smaller places.” Schroeder said she 

thought the 25 percent sample was “the only realistic 

one [program].” She then asked if “the 25-percent 

sample ha[d] $160 million ($648 million in 2010 dollars) more value datawise than the 1.5 percent sample?” Barabba replied, “That’s a judgment this committee is going to have to make.” Levine added that 

it was important to distinguish between “just getting 

population counts,” which were used for revenue 

sharing, “and the wide variety of characteristics data 

that you’re looking at, namely the detail of crosstabulation, income by family size, poverty. There a 25 

percent sample does give you a much greater reliability than would a 1.5 percent sample.”67

MID-DECADE CENSUS BILL BECOMES LAW

The two bills (H.R. 2556 and H.R. 3704) that 

Schroeder’s subcommittee discussed with Barabba 

and Levine in May 1975 did not emerge from 

committee. However, Schroeder introduced another 

mid-decade census bill in the House in December 

1975. This bill (H.R. 11337) passed in the House 

of Representatives the following April and was 

referred to the Senate. The House bill authorized the 

Secretary of Commerce to conduct a mid-decade 

census in 1985 and every 10 years thereafter. The 

bill also recognized the importance of obtaining 

respondents’ characteristics as well as simple counts 

of age, race, sex, etc., and encouraged the Secretary 

to incorporate sampling methodology whenever 

feasible. In its hearing on the Senate version of 

the bill, 3688, the Subcommittee on Census and 

Statistics of the Committee on Post Office and Civil 

Service heard the representatives of the Office of 

Management and Budget,68 Fernando Oaxaca and 

Joseph Duncan, support the proposed legislation 

on the mid-decade census. The Congressional 

67 Ibid., pp. 4–6.

68 President Richard Nixon reorganized the Bureau of the Budget 

into the Office of Management and Budget in 1970.

Budget Office (CBO) estimated that a complete 

census would cost $517.5 million ($2.0 billion in 2010 

dollars) and that up to $490.6 million ($1.9 billion 

in 2010 dollars) of that could be offset by reducing 

or eliminating intercensal demographic programs 

across the executive branch aimed at updating 

decennial census data.69 An amended version passed 

the Senate in September, and President Ford signed 

the bill into law on October 17, 1976. At the signing 

ceremony, Ford noted that the new law (P.L. 94-521) 

would provide “ . . . a major opportunity to improve 

the statistical information which is often the basis 

for decisions on major issues of public policy . . . 

we will no longer need to rely on data which are 

often obsolete. The historic method of counting the 

population every 10 years simply does not meet the 

Nation’s current needs...I commend the Congress for 

passing this legislation. It will provide us with better 

data, of greater consistency, at a reduced cost.”70

When the mid-decade census law was signed, the 

Census Bureau was just completing work on its fiscal 

year (FY) 1978 budget request. To begin planning for 

the 1985 Census, the agency requested and received 

$500,000 ($1.5 million in 2010 dollars) in its FY 1979 

budget. Final planning for the 1980 Census delayed 

the establishment of the mid-decade census staff 

until February 1979. Within a couple of months, a 

four-person staff had been assembled, and the challenge of planning the first mid-decade census had 

begun in earnest.71

Since the legislation establishing the mid-decade census did not specify its scope or content, these were 

among the first considerations. As the Census Bureau 

began to assess the data needs for 1985 and beyond, 

the basic objectives of the mid-decade census were 

to update population totals and characteristics for 

the distribution of federal funds to state and local 

governments and for the administration of federal 

program benefits to various segments of the population. Through the Statistical Policy Coordination 

Committee and the Federal Agency Council on 

Demographic Censuses, the Census Bureau solicited agency data needs and the geographic levels 

69 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Census and Statistics of the 

Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, hearing on 

“Mid-Decade Census Legislation,” July 29, 1976, 94th Cong., 

2nd Sess., 1976, pp. 71–74, 54–57. 70 Public Papers of the Presidents: Gerald R. Ford, 1976–77: Book 

III “Statement on Signing the Bill Providing for a Mid-Decade Census 

of Population,” October 18, 1976, GPO, Washington, DC, 1979. 71 Memorandum from Joseph W. Duncan, director, Office 

of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, to Lucille Reifman, deputy director for Program 

Evaluation, Department of Commerce, July 31, 1980.
38 U.S. Census Bureau

at which the data were required. The Census Bureau 

considered two basic options:

• A complete count, if block-level data were needed, 

using either a single form (equivalent to the 1980 

short form) or a combination of a short form and a 

long form.

• A sample survey, if the lowest level of geography 

for which data were needed was the governmental 

unit participating in the revenue sharing program.72

The sample survey approach could use a single 

questionnaire or multiple questionnaires. In the 

latter case, each questionnaire would contain core 

data items plus one or more modules asking for 

more detailed characteristics. Data from the core 

items could be tabulated for the lowest geographic 

level needed (e.g., census tract or governmental 

unit) while the data from the modules would be 

produced for larger geographic areas.73

IMPLEMENTING THE MID-DECADE CENSUS 

The legislation creating the mid-decade census 

encouraged the Census Bureau to explore ways to 

use sampling to collect the data. By the summer of 

1979, this suggestion, together with concerns about 

respondent burden and the rapidly escalating cost of 

the 1980 Census (to roughly $1.1 billion, $2.9 billion in 

2010 dollars) led the Census Bureau to propose that 

the 1985 effort be a sample survey.74 An early proposal 

was unveiled at the American Statistical Association 

annual meeting in 1979.75 The authors proposed that 

the survey collect data at the following geographic 

levels: states, standard metropolitan statistical areas 

(SMSAs), central cities, balance of SMSAs, and balance of state. The option of using the 39,500 general 

72 Federal revenue sharing referred to the distribution of a 

portion of federal tax revenue to states and municipalities. Federal 

legislation established the program in 1972 under the Nixon 

administration. The program continued until 1987, when the Reagan 

administration replaced it with the federal block grant program. 73 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “1985 Mid-Decade Census: 

Background Paper for the Federal Agency Council Meeting,” May 2, 

1979. 74 Memorandum from George E. Hall to Joseph W. Duncan, 

July 17, 1979. Prior to July 1979, George Hall was deputy director 

of Social Statistics in the Office of Federal Statistical Policy and 

Standards. In July 1979, Hall accepted the position of associate 

director for Demographic Fields at the Census Bureau and served in 

that position until May 1981. 75 Marie G. Argana and Daniel B. Levine, “Preliminary Thinking of 

the Design and Content of the Mid-Decade Census,” paper delivered 

at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association on 

August 13–16, 1979. Marie Argana joined the Census Bureau in 1963 

and was appointed chief of the Mid-Decade Census Staff in 1979. 

She served in that position until the staff was abolished in 1980. 

Daniel Levine was associate director for Demographic Fields of the 

Census Bureau from 1973 to 1979, then deputy director until his 

retirement in 1982.

purpose governmental units as the lowest geographic 

level was rejected as not being cost effective. About 

71 percent of these units had populations of less than 

3,000 people but accounted for only 10.4 percent of 

the U.S. population. One possible approach to obtaining data on smaller governmental units was through 

the use of a “nested” survey.76 This involved administering different questionnaires to different subsamples 

of the same universe. All samples would be asked 

some core questions and one subsample could include 

all questions on all the questionnaires. The resulting 

data would be used to develop estimators that could 

be applied to the governmental units that could not be 

sampled directly. In addition to providing population 

counts, the mid-decade survey would have to produce 

characteristics of the population as well.

Many data users were not satisfied by the approach 

summarized by Argana and Levine because they 

wanted statistics for smaller areas, more detail on 

rural areas, or more information on characteristics. 

A preliminary review of responses from federal 

agencies to a Census Bureau request for the geographic level for which information was needed 

suggested that the county was the lowest level most 

frequently mentioned, but census tract also figured 

prominently.77

Meanwhile, the Census Bureau continued polling federal agencies about their data needs, and made plans 

to contact state and local government agencies and 

a list of over 15,000 interested data users that was 

developed from the 1980 Census planning meetings. 

Census Bureau personnel also prepared presentations on plans for the mid-decade program for delivery to selected groups, such as the census advisory 

committees and national professional associations.

Several federal departments (e.g., Transportation; 

Health, Education, and Welfare; and Labor) indicated 

that if the mid-decade survey were not implemented, 

they would request expansion of other surveys or 

new special purpose surveys to obtain data they 

needed for their own programmatic reasons. The 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reported that a 

relatively small expenditure would pay for an IRS/

76 For more on nested surveys, refer to the Office of Federal 

Statistical Policy and Standards, “A Framework for Planning 

U.S. Federal Statistics for the 1980s,” GPO, Washington, DC, 1978, 

pp. 371–372, 406. 77 Memorandum from Joseph W. Duncan, director, Office 

of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, to Lucille Reifman, deputy director for Program 

Evaluation, Department of Commerce, July 31, 1980; U.S. Census 

Bureau, “Mid-Decade Census Content Suggested by Federal 

Agencies,” March 4, 1980.
U.S. Census Bureau 39

Census Bureau match in conjunction with the middecade program. This would make possible smallarea estimates with substantial subject matter detail. 

The Office of Federal Statistical Policy and Standards 

(OFSPS) notified the Office of Management and 

Budget that withholding FY 1981 planning funds for 

the mid-decade program would undermine the most 

important planning phase of the project.78

The Census Bureau’s early planning for the 1985 

mid-decade census took place in an exceedingly difficult economic climate. The second oil crisis of 1979, 

which accompanied the fall of the Shah of Iran and 

the coming to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, 

led to a significant increase in the price of gasoline. 

The beginning of the Iran-Iraq war the following year 

severely curtailed oil extraction in both countries. 

The Iran hostage crisis, which began on November 4, 

1979, outraged many Americans and contributed to a 

renewed sense of vulnerability and increased attention to the military budget. In addition, the late 1970s 

were a period of slow economic growth and high 

inflation in the United States. While gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates remained in the 

1–2 percent range, inflation jumped from an annual 

average of 8 percent from 1974 through 1978 to 10.75 

percent in the first 9 months of 1979. Interest rates 

increased even faster than inflation, with the prime 

rate more than doubling from October 1977 (7.5 percent) to November 1979 (15.5 percent).79 As James T. 

McIntyre, director of the Office of Management and 

Budget, put it in a letter to Secretary of Commerce 

Philip Klutznick, “It is the President’s objective that 

this budget [FY 1981] contribute significantly to a 

moderation in the inflation rate while at the same 

time providing adequate resources to maintain a 

strong national defense, to reduce dependence on 

imported oil, and to assist the disadvantaged and 

the needy.80 This context was not conducive to the 

launching of new federal statistical programs.

DEMISE OF THE MID-DECADE CENSUS 

Primarily for budgetary reasons, the mid-decade 

census found itself under major assault in the fall of 

1979. OFSPS Chief Joseph W. Duncan appealed to a 

senior OMB official, stating that the use of IRS data 

78 Ibid.

79 Richard Sutch and Susan B. Carter (eds.), “Historical Statistics 

of the United States, Earliest Times to the Present,” Volume 3, New 

York, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp. 3–27, 147–167, 594–595, 

812–827. Also refer to James Patterson, “Restless Giant,” Oxford 

University Press, New York, 2007. 80 Letter from James T. McIntyre to Philip Klutznick, February 11, 

1980.

alone without the supplementary information provided by the mid-decade program would be inadequate to bridge the gap between estimates drawn 

from national surveys and small area population and 

income statistics. Program planning and policymaking 

might be compromised. Reliance on population estimates instead of the mid-decade census information 

would result in a less equitable distribution of federal 

funds for Community Block Development Grants, 

Comprehensive Employment and Training Act funding, 

and Highway Research, Planning, and Construction. 

Not funding the mid-decade program would also 

undermine the planning for a more efficient statistical 

system in the 1980s. Duncan argued that the alternative proposed by OMB was inadequate. It “would 

not provide statistics required for effective program 

planning and policy decisions in the latter half of the 

1980’s. The system proposed by Census and OFSPS 

used the mid-decade as a critical link between estimates from national surveys and small-area population 

and income estimates.”81 Duncan’s appeal failed, and in 

January 1980, he wrote to the members of the Federal 

Agency Council to cancel a meeting called for the following month to discuss planning for the mid-decade 

program.82

As word spread within the data-user community of 

the cancellation of the mid-decade census, state and 

local governments began registering their complaints. A consultant for the Department of Health 

of New York City noted that he had testified at a 

congressional hearing in support of collecting “smallarea population data more frequently than every 10 

years.” No sample survey that he was aware of would 

be able to provide such data. While sample data 

might be adequate for federal purposes, they would 

not fulfill local needs. “But, what about local needs? 

A mid-decade census was proposed in order to eliminate the need for the expensive special censuses 

undertaken at local cost in earlier years; local communities can no longer afford this. I recognize that a 

complete census is extremely expensive. But actions 

taken in ignorance of facts can be even more expensive” (emphasis in original).83 The state statistician of 

Hawaii echoed these comments, “For a wide variety 

of State and local purposes, accurate statistics at the 

State, County, and census tract levels are essential. 

81 Memorandum from Joseph W. Duncan to Joyce Walker, deputy 

associate director, Transportation, Commerce, and Housing, OMB, 

November 19, 1979. 82 Memorandum from Joseph W. Duncan to Members of the 

Federal Agency Council for Demographic Censuses, January 29, 

1980. 83 Letter from Carl L. Erhardt to Vincent P. Barabba, May 15, 1980.
40 U.S. Census Bureau

Only a 100 percent enumeration of population and 

housing units, accompanied by sizable samples on 

population and housing characteristics can meet the 

intercensal need with the necessary accuracy at the 

county and census tract levels.”84 The manager of the 

Oregon state data center (SDC) wrote that the proposed plan for a large sample survey in 1985 producing data for states, SMSAs, central cities, balance of 

SMSAs, and balance of states “will not result in information that will greatly benefit the state of Oregon 

or its local governments.” The need for small-area 

data was so great that the Oregon SDC was willing 

“to sacrifice data content for the sake of greater 

geographic precision.”85 On the other hand, the executive vice president of the Great Falls (MT) Chamber 

of Commerce applauded the Census Bureau’s plans 

for a 1985 sample census, noting that even though it 

“will be only a large sample survey,” it “will nonetheless be very, very important to the nation’s business 

community as it does market research and other 

economic database fact finding.”86 These different 

views from various data users were a reflection of 

the different uses to which census data were put. 

However, most data users opposed the proposed 

cancellation of the mid-decade census.

OMB objected to funding the program because no 

federal agency had demonstrated “clearly compelling” national data needs. OMB suggested that a 

more modest alternative would be improved population estimates combined with data from current and 

special censuses. In early summer 1980, Secretary 

of Commerce Philip Klutznick noted that the Census 

Bureau by itself might not be able to meet the mandate of Public Law 94-521 (Mid-Decade Census Act) 

that required the mid-decade census and suggested 

that “given the broad uses for improved subnational 

data,” it seemed “more appropriate to level the cost 

of the program on the data users who will benefit the 

most.”87 Pointing out that one of the largest uses of 

mid-decade census data would be to allocate funds 

via the general revenue sharing program, Secretary 

Klutznick suggested that “a small percentage of 

the funds appropriated for general revenue sharing 

84 Letter from Robert C. Schmitt to Director, Office of Federal 

Statistical Policy and Standards, May 6, 1980. 85 Letter from Jon Roberts to Marie Argana, chief of the 

Mid-Decade Census Staff, March 26, 1980. Roberts included in 

his letter quotations from the “Federal Statistics Users’ Conference 

Alert,” dated February 12, 1980. 86 Letter from Roger W. Young to Marie Argana, February 26, 

1980. 87 Draft memorandum from the Secretary of Commerce (Philip 

Klutznick) to James T. McIntyre, Jr., director, Office of Management 

and Budget, June 25, 1980.

program” should pay for the census. Other major 

federal uses of small-area census data were for the 

distribution of community development block grants 

(Housing and Community Development Act of 1974), 

CETA funding (Comprehensive Employment and 

Training Act), and the Department of Education’s 

elementary and secondary school assistance 

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act). Klutznick 

also recommended exploring “other alternative 

sources of funding.” Then he proposed developing 

“a multiyear plan for strengthening and updating the 

subnational data base.” The options to be explored 

included:

• Using statistical techniques, such as synthetic estimation, to increase the usefulness of existing data 

bases.

• Improving the utility of administrative record 

systems.

• Upgrading the demographic estimates program.

• Revising some of the current household surveys.88

The Secretary also included a description of a program of subnational data improvement that might 

replace a mid-decade census, formulated by the 

Commerce Department’s chief economist, Courtenay 

Slater. Slater’s proposal was estimated to cost about 

$160 million ($423 million in 2010 dollars) and would 

consist of a multiyear, multiagency effort in which the 

Census Bureau would play a key part.

As described, the Census Bureau would contribute 

improved population projection and demographic 

estimation techniques, administrative records 

research, and expanded large-scale surveys.89 In 

response, the OMB said that although the administration generally opposed set-asides of general revenue 

sharing funds, given the importance of improved 

small-area data for the Office of Revenue Sharing 

(ORS), the administration would consider funding a 

portion of the initiative with revenue from the ORS 

and from other data users.90

Over the next year or so, the Census Bureau devoted 

more resources to this alternative plan and wound 

down its preparation for a mid-decade census. 

However, the congress denied funding for major 

components of this initiative during its review of the 

Census Bureau’s proposed budget for FY 1982. Since 

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid., attachment, “Small Area Data Initiative for FY 1982.”

90 Memorandum from James T. McIntyre, Jr. to Philip M. 

Klutznick, August 1, 1980.
U.S. Census Bureau 41

the Census Bureau was required by law to submit 

to its oversight committees the list of subjects to 

be included in the 1985 Census in April 1982, senior 

Census Bureau officials proposed informing the 

Congress that there would be no mid-decade statistical program in 1985.91

CUMULATIVE ROLLING SAMPLES: AN 

ALTERNATIVE TO A MID-DECADE CENSUS

As the Census Bureau wound down its middecade census program, another set of options for 

using sampling to obtain intercensal data for small 

areas was proposed by Leslie Kish, a leading statistician at the University of Michigan.92 The House 

Subcommittee on Census and Population asked the 

Congressional Research Service (CRS) to look into 

how increased use of sample surveys could improve 

the collection of statistical information. One area 

of particular concern was the need for intercensal 

small-area data about population characteristics for 

general revenue sharing and other purposes. CRS 

contracted with the Institute for Social Research (ISR) 

at the University of Michigan to analyze the issue and 

explore ways to improve the use of Census Bureau 

resources to produce more accurate and timely 

information about the size and characteristics of 

the American population. On behalf of the ISR, Kish 

wrote the paper, and CRS distributed it to several 

leading researchers for their comments.93

Kish noted that efforts to produce improved smallarea data could involve either collecting new data 

or finding ways to derive new estimates either from 

data available in registers or from sample surveys—

together with census results. He suggested that the 

latter might be cheaper and would definitely reduce 

respondent burden.

KISH’S PROPOSAL

Kish’s Suggestion Had a Number of Components

Using address listing procedures, the Census Bureau 

could collect and cumulate information on living 

quarters, their occupants, or both, on a weekly, 

91 “Abstract of Secretarial Correspondence,” prepared by 

Daniel B. Levine, October 20, 1981. 92 Leslie Kish, “Using Cumulated Rolling Samples to Integrate 

Census and Survey Operations of the Census Bureau,” produced 

at the request of the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service, 97th Congress, 1st Session, Committee 

Print No. 97-2, June 26, 1981. 93 The reviewers were Ivan Fellegi (Statistics Canada), Philip 

Hauser (University of Chicago), and Robert Hill (National Urban 

League).

monthly, quarterly, annual, and 5-year basis.94 The 

data collected by the new survey could consist of: a 

simple count of housing units or dwellings; a count of 

living quarters plus a brief interview to collect basic 

demographic information on all the occupants; an 

extensive set of inquiries dealing with demographic, 

occupational, and residential information; or some 

combination of these.

The agency could institute a new, large-scale survey 

with a sample size of up to 10 to 20 times larger than 

the more than 80,000 households then included 

in the Current Population Survey (CPS)—a monthly 

labor force survey sponsored by the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics and carried out by the Census Bureau.

The new survey’s relationship to the CPS could be 

either completely independent, linked to the CPS in 

some clearly defined way, or could consist of a substantial expansion of the CPS.95

The data the new survey tabulated and released to 

the public would consist of cumulated rolling samples. A rolling sample is one in which a particular 

area, such as a county, is sampled at regular intervals. Separate, nonoverlapping samples are selected 

from the same area over a given period of time—for 

example once per month for a year.96 For small areas 

obtaining sufficient sample size to produce reliable 

estimates requires cumulating the data over a period 

of several years.

Listing Procedures

Both decennial censuses and household surveys 

depend on accurate listing procedures.97 Listing 

dwellings involves compiling them by location, 

number, and other identifiers. Kish pointed out that 

94 The Census Bureau recognizes two types of living quarters: 

housing units and group quarters. Housing units are defined as 

houses, apartments, mobile homes or trailers, groups of rooms, 

or single rooms occupied as separate living quarters or, if vacant, 

intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. All people not 

living in housing units are classified by the Census Bureau as living 

in group quarters, which include such places as college dormitories, 

correctional institutions, nursing homes, group homes, mental 

hospitals or wards, hospices, and military quarters. 95 Two events are independent if the probability of one is the 

same whether the other event occurs or not. Two surveys are 

independent of each other if their sample selection processes are 

distinct and separate from each other, and their data collection and 

data processing systems are separate. 96 A more technical definition of a rolling sample is the joint 

selection of k nonoverlapping probability samples, each of which 

constitutes 1/F of the entire population. One sample is interviewed 

each time period until all the sample has been interviewed after k 

periods. 97 The address list developed for the decennial census served 

as the sampling frame for most Census Bureau household surveys, 

including the Current Population Survey and the Consumer 

Expenditure Survey.
42 U.S. Census Bureau

changes, especially increases, in the number of dwellings in a particular area have historically provided the 

best index of changes in that area’s population and 

have served as an excellent basis for current population estimates. Population changes in the years since 

the last census can have drastic effects on small-area 

estimates.98

Kish described several address listing procedures 

that could serve as alternatives to more censuses. To 

reduce the unit cost of these listings, Kish suggested 

confining them to dwellings. Limiting the listing to 

dwellings would be the cheapest alternative because 

it would not require that the person compiling the list 

contact anyone at the address being listed. Kish estimated that address listing cost between $1 and $2.50 

per address (in 1981 dollars; between $2.40 and 

$6.00 in 2010 dollars).99 Adding simple information 

about the housing unit (such as occupancy status and 

type of structure) would require “occasional inquiries on the street or at the door” and would probably 

double the cost to between $2 and $5 ($4.80 and 

$11.99 in 2010 dollars) per dwelling.100 To obtain reliable population estimates, it would be necessary to 

contact a respondent at each sample dwelling and to 

ask about the relationships of the people within each 

dwelling and the permanent address of each inhabitant. This would allow the estimates to be corrected 

for errors and biases and could increase the cost by 

up to five times the amount needed for an estimate 

of dwellings only. These costs could be reduced by 

subsampling the sample of dwellings.101

Adding sex, age, and a few other characteristics for 

each household member would increase the cost still 

further. This kind of data collection would be similar 

to that collected from 100 percent of households 

in the decennial census. The most expensive option 

would be to collect the full range of information 

about each inhabitant of the sample dwellings as 

would be obtained from those who completed the 

sample questionnaires in the decennial census.102

Sample Size

Since Kish was interested in providing data for both 

small areas and the nation as a whole, he emphasized 

the importance of large samples. A weekly rolling 

sample of one dwelling in 520 (1:520) would cumulate 

98 Kish, 1981, pp. 20, 38.

99 Ibid., p. 38.

100 Ibid., pp. 38–39. 101 Ibid., p. 39.

102 Ibid., pp. 39–40.

to an annual sample of one dwelling in ten (1:10). This 

would cumulate to complete national coverage every 

10 years.103 Regardless of the type of listing operation selected, a large sample of dwellings per month 

would be needed to maintain full national coverage 

while minimizing unit cost. Samples taken in different weeks or months could be cumulated to produce 

quarterly, yearly, biennial, or quinquennial statistics. 

As the period of cumulation increased from months 

to years, information about smaller geographic areas 

would become available.104

Cumulated Rolling Samples 

A rolling sample is a nonoverlapping probability sample of a specific geographic area repeated at regular 

intervals over a specified period of time. For example, a rolling sample of a small county would involve 

drawing a number of samples from an address list 

of that county, and administering questionnaires at 

housing units falling into the sample every month 

for a period of several years. The information elicited from respondents would be added (cumulated) 

together, so that the sample size after several years 

of data collection would be large enough to produce 

reliable estimates of the characteristics of the population and housing stock of the county.

Relationship Between the New Rolling Samples and 

the CPS 

The differences among the three listing procedures 

Kish discussed depended on their relationship to 

the listing procedure used in the Current Population 

Survey (CPS). One option involved listing dwellings 

completely separately from the CPS and from any 

other Census Bureau survey. To maintain the independence of the listing procedure would require a 

separate sample design, operations, and personnel. 

This approach would maintain maximum flexibility 

for both the CPS and the rolling sample.105 The large 

overlapping samples currently in the CPS design 

would continue, as would the spatially concentrated 

interviews.106 Kish indicated that counts and lists of 

dwellings would yield “adequate” estimates of major 

population changes for small areas, but added that 

reliable estimates of the characteristics of households, families, and individuals required obtaining 

103 Ibid., p. 7. 104 Ibid., pp. 5–7, 19. 105 Ibid. 106 The overlapping sample in the CPS referred to the sample 

design that placed a dwelling in the CPS sample for 4 consecutive 

months, out of the sample for the next 8 months, then back in the 

sample for 4 months.
U.S. Census Bureau 43

information about each of the individuals in each 

sampled dwelling. Recording the characteristics of 

every person in a sampled unit would increase the 

cost per dwelling by a factor of between three and 

five. Field testing would provide the cost and benefit 

data required to choose among the options, which 

could include enumeration of subsamples to reduce 

costs.107

Kish’s second option was to incorporate the listing 

operation into the CPS as a preliminary step. In the 

early 1980s, the CPS average monthly sample was 

between 1 in 1,000 dwellings and 1 in 2,000 dwellings. 

He suggested increasing the listing operation by a 

factor of 10 or 20, to approximately 1 in 100 dwellings per month, or roughly 12 percent of the nation’s 

dwellings each year. He estimated that an increase of 

this magnitude would only double the cost of current surveys because the unit cost of listing dwellings “may be” only about 10 percent of the unit cost 

of interviewing. As noted earlier, limiting the listing 

to dwellings would minimize the cost because it 

could be done mostly from outside the dwellings. He 

pointed out that listing and counting 10 to 20 dwellings for each dwelling included in the CPS would 

probably improve small-area estimates more than 

doubling the size of the survey samples. This would 

be true if most error in a local estimate was due to 

an unusual increase or decrease in the area’s population since the last census. Population changes since 

the last census can have dramatic effects on estimates for small areas. Kish thought it more likely that 

small-area estimates could be improved by designing 

cumulated rolling listings as part of the CPS than 

by designing them as an independent operation. 

However, verifying this hypothesis would require statistical investigation and testing.108

Kish’s third alternative involved using cumulated rolling listings to extend the CPS. To accomplish this, it 

would be necessary to substantially increase the size 

of the CPS sample. Other modifications included:

• Designing the rolling sample as a yearly sample of 1 

or 5 percent of the nation’s dwellings.

• Eliminating the overlaps in the CPS to include more 

dwellings each decade.

• Including all other current surveys in the listing 

operation.

107 Kish, 1981, pp. 19–20. 108 Ibid., pp. 20–21.

• Supplementing these changes with additional listings to achieve the required size for the cumulated 

rolling listing.109

These changes would allow the collection of richer 

data than either of the other options. They would 

probably provide sufficient precision for current 

population estimates for states and counties but not 

for tracts or for most of the 39,000 revenue-sharing 

entities.

Kish stressed that the Census Bureau had the statistical and operational expertise to plan and implement 

cumulated rolling samples. He noted several points 

about doing so. In compiling these samples, there 

should be no overlaps. If overlaps were required for 

other reasons, the rolling sample could consist of the 

nonoverlapping portion. As an example, he posited 

a 1.5 percent yearly sample with a one-third overlap; 

the rolling sample could contain the nonoverlapping 

1 percent of the sample. Also, he pointed out that 

5-year cumulations of the sample could be made 

continuously, yearly, or even monthly. Data obsolescence could be reduced by using moving averages, 

with a larger weight given to more recent years. 

Data would become available for areas with large 

populations over a shorter period of time, while less 

populated areas would require a longer time period 

for the rolling sample to attain sufficient size. Single 

year cumulations could be produced for states and 

large SMSAs; areas with smaller populations would 

need much longer. Lastly, weekly national samples 

of 15,000 or 30,000 dwellings (especially if they 

included person counts) could serve as the lists from 

which CPS samples were selected. These lists of 

dwellings (with or without person counts) could also 

be used: when the nation needed an ad hoc survey 

to respond to certain emergencies; for annual or 

quarterly surveys for other reasons; or as the screening phase for surveys of special populations such as 

those with physical, mental, or emotional conditions, 

or men or women of draft age.110

Kish argued that weekly or monthly rolling samples 

could serve as almost continuous population samples, preferable in some ways to decennial censuses 

that are taken as of a single reference date every 

10 years. Periodic samples produce more accurate 

109 Ibid., p. 8. 110 Ibid., pp. 30, 32.
44 U.S. Census Bureau

reflections of the changing location of people than 

censuses do.111

Kish noted that cumulated rolling samples would 

pose significant challenges for the Census Bureau’s 

field staff because each sample would have to 

include all counties in the United States (assuming 

that counties would be the primary sampling units). A 

weekly sample of 1 dwelling in 2,600 (clustered into 

large workloads) would have to be spread over large, 

sparsely populated areas. This sampling rate would 

yield about 1 dwelling in 600 monthly, 1 in 200 quarterly, and 1 in 50 (2 percent) annually. To accomplish 

this in conjunction with the CPS, as Kish proposed, 

would mean changing the sampling procedure for 

the CPS and increasing its workload to approximately 

130,000 households per month—roughly equivalent 

to the total number of housing units Census Bureau 

interviewers contacted on a monthly basis for all 

household surveys the agency conducted in the early 

1980s. If the CPS and the other household surveys 

could be modified to dovetail with the rolling sample 

concept, this would mean that the workload could be 

reorganized rather than expanded to accommodate 

cumulative rolling samples.112

A major problem with expanding the CPS in this way 

was the overlap in the sample.113 Since CPS interviewers repeated their contacts eight times, they only 

visited 1/16 of the different households that were 

needed for the cumulated rolling sample. A second 

problem arose because cumulated rolling samples 

would have to cover the entire country, whereas the 

CPS covered only about 70 percent of the areas in 

which most of the population resided.114

One solution to this problem would be to increase the 

size and area coverage of the CPS. While an enlarged 

CPS could provide the sample size required for 

current local listings, the magnitude of the increase 

would have to be on the order of 10 to 20 times the 

111 Ibid., p. 32. These samples would collect data throughout 

the year, and the reference dates would change with the addition 

of each new monthly sample. The decennial census collects all its 

data as of April 1 of the census year. Seasonal adjustments would 

probably be needed to align sample data with decennial census 

data. 112 Ibid., pp. 33–34.

113 Refer to footnote number 15 for a discussion of the overlap 

sample used in the CPS. 114 Ibid., pp. 34–35. For the purposes of the CPS, about 65 

percent of the population lives in “self-representing areas,” i.e., 

areas with a sufficiently large population that they are selected for 

the CPS sample with certainty. The rest of the population lives in 

“nonself-representing areas,” i.e., those that are randomly selected 

to represent themselves as well as other areas not selected for 

the sample. State supplements to the CPS reduced the nonselfrepresenting areas somewhat.

size of the CPS to bring the yearly sample up to 2 

percent of the nation’s dwellings, or to 10 percent 

every 5 years. Kish thought it unlikely that a tenfold 

increase in the size of the CPS would be acceptable.115

THE MID-1980s AT THE CENSUS BUREAU

Kish’s proposals for collecting cumulated rolling 

listings did not result in any immediate research 

program at the Census Bureau or elsewhere. The 

early 1980s were a time of tight federal budgets. The 

Census Bureau experienced substantial layoffs in 

1982. Still, Kish’s ideas percolated through the statistical community and became one of a number of 

possibilities for improving the timelines of small-area 

data. Other options under discussion included using 

model-based estimation techniques and administrative data. When, in the mid-1980s, the Census Bureau 

considered how it might use sampling to obtain 

population and housing unit counts in the 1990 census, the four alternatives examined did not include 

Kish’s concept of rolling samples.116 However planners 

considered the possibility of conducting a sample 

census, that is, a census that did not count the inhabitants of all dwellings directly but relied on a sampling 

procedure to produce final population, housing unit, 

and group quarters estimates. Census Bureau staff 

noted that a sample census would require the prior 

creation of a complete, geocoded, national address 

list that would serve as the sampling frame for a sample census.117 They also pointed out some of the legal, 

political, and perceptual issues that would accompany a shift to a sample census, such as the need to 

modify the Census Bureau’s statute (Title 13, U.S.C.) 

to allow sampling to be used to produce the official 

population count, potential political opposition to 

using sampling for the count, and the public reaction 

to a census that did not try to count everyone.118

In 1987, Peter Bounpane, assistant director for 

Decennial Census, raised the question of whether a 

sample census was a possibility in the United States 

and whether such a census might consist of one or 

more large-scale surveys or rolling cumulative surveys. Inexorably rising census costs; the 2- to 3-year 

time lag between the completion of data collection 

and the release of detailed characteristics data; 

115 Ibid., p. 35.

116 Susan Miskura, Henry Woltman, and John Thompson, 

“Research Plan: Uses of Sampling for the Census Count,” 

1984 Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, 

Proceedings, Social Statistics Section, pp. 458–463. 117 Ibid., pp. 458, 460.

118 Ibid., p. 459.
U.S. Census Bureau 45

concerns about census accuracy; and expanding reliance on census data by government, commerce and 

industry, and the scientific community combined to 

lead the Census Bureau to reconsider its reliance on a 

complete-count census.119

Bounpane summarized the uses of census data 

(reapportionment, redistricting, distribution of federal 

funds, statistical benchmarking, etc.) and concluded 

that most of them required reliable small-area data. 

He pointed out the difficulty of accurately estimating the populations of small cities or counties and 

concluded that if a sample census were to replace 

the complete-count version, data users would have 

to make decisions about the error levels they could 

tolerate. After reviewing the ways sampling had been 

incorporated into American censuses between 1940 

and 1980, he remarked that it was no longer a question of whether censuses should include sampling but 

how much sampling should be included.120

Bounpane considered two options for a sample 

census, each of which would replace the traditional 

complete count of the population. The first option 

consisted of a single-stage sample of the entire 

population taken as often as needed. The second 

option was a cumulative rolling sample along the 

lines suggested by Kish (refer to the “Kish’s Proposal” 

section in this chapter). The benefits of a sample 

census included lower cost, increased accuracy, more 

timely data releases, and reduction of respondent 

burden. While he included caveats for each benefit, 

he thought that many could be reduced, if not eliminated. One serious drawback of a sample-based census was the likelihood of “substantially poorer coverage” than could be obtained from a complete census. 

Indeed, the Census Bureau concluded that based on 

internal “analysis of issues related to a completely 

sample-based census,” a sample census could not be 

substituted for a complete enumeration because the 

level of coverage error would be “unacceptable.” It 

would raise significant, unavoidable concerns about 

differential undercoverage and about the benchmarking of current surveys and population estimates. The 

census was also the only attempt “to include every 

person in the United States” in a single, national 

activity and, in the process, “generate[s] a sense of 

national ceremony.” Bounpane doubted whether the 

119 Peter A. Bounpane, “A Sample Census: A Valid Alternative to a 

Complete Count Census?” in the Proceedings of the 46th Session of 

the International Statistical Institute, held in Tokyo, Japan, in August 

1987, Booklet of Invited Papers, pp. 71–87. 120 Ibid., pp. 73–75.

“national ceremonial mood” could accompany a sample census. Finally, the U.S. Constitution stated that 

seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were to be 

divided among the states “according to their respective numbers” (i.e., to each state’s population as 

determined by the decennial census). Modifications 

made to the basic census law (Title 13, U.S.C.) in 1976 

prohibited the use of sampling for apportionment 

purposes. Employing a sample census instead of a 

complete count for apportionment purposes would 

require a legislative change and would be subject to 

a constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court would 

then make the final decision.121 Because of these 

issues, the Census Bureau was not actively researching replacing a complete census in 1990 with a sample census.

RETHINKING THE DECENNIAL CENSUS AT THE 

END OF THE 1980s

While the leadership of the Census Bureau did not 

consider a dramatic change for the immediate future, 

it began to weigh alternatives for 2000 and beyond. 

It encouraged two small, research groups within the 

agency to explore options to simplify the decennial 

census by reducing the number of questions asked 

and developing ways to make subnational demographic and housing data available more frequently 

than once every decade.

It is not entirely clear why the Census Bureau allowed 

two initially independent teams to investigate a similar problem, overhauling the decennial census, rather 

than adopting a unified approach. Part of the explanation may be attributed to the differing origins of 

the two teams.

Beginning in 1987, an informal group, headed by 

Roger Herriot, senior advisor to William P. Butz, 

associate director for Demographic Fields, began to 

explore modifications to the decennial census that 

included: separating the long (sample) form from the 

short-form data collection effort; collecting sample 

data on an ongoing basis throughout the decade; 

and providing subnational data between censuses.122

121 Ibid., pp. 77–81.

122 Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, and William F McCarthy, 

“Oral Presentation Notes,” n.d. [spring 1988], in Sheree W. Alston, 

“Discussions of the Future of the Decennial Census,” October 14, 

1988. Bateman and McCarthy were among the Census Bureau’s 

experts whom Roger Herriot persuaded to lend their talents to 

the development of the Integrated System of Area Statistics. See 

also, Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, and William F. McCarthy, 

“ISAS—Integrated System of Area Statistics—A New Approach for 

Meeting the Nation’s Needs for Sub-National Data,” unpublished 

paper, May 3, 1988.
46 U.S. Census Bureau

According to Butz, Herriot had a flair for imaginative, 

innovative thinking, and Butz gave him broad latitude to investigate important problems that might 

produce significant benefits for the Census Bureau in 

the long run.123 Butz added that Herriot also had an 

uncanny ability to persuade or inspire “people who 

were supposed to be working for someone else to 

work informally for him instead.” One Census Bureau 

division chief told Butz that “Roger goes up and 

down the hall getting Pop[ulation] Division people 

to work on his stuff. (But don’t worry, I can handle 

it.)” With more than a hint of exasperation, another 

division chief reported, “It says here on the Division 

roster that Bob Fay [a highly regarded applied statistician] is working for me, but as nearly as I can tell, 

he’s really working for Herriot.” A third division chief 

turned down a request for the assistance of three 

of his managers on a project with the comment, 

“They’re working on that idea of Herriot’s.”124

The second team was headed by Bruce Johnson, 

chief of the 21st Century Decennial Census Planning 

Staff. The Census Bureau’s Director John G. Keane 

tried to establish this planning staff in the spring of 

1987. He recommended that it “report directly to the 

Census Bureau Deputy Director,” C. Louis Kincannon, 

because the unit had to be “free to pursue very 

new ideas.” In asking Kincannon to create this staff, 

Keane noted that, “Were the group to report to any 

associate director, none has the overall organizational 

perspective and responsibility equaling the Deputy 

Director’s.”125 Keane’s vision for the new census 

planning staff was quite broad—“No area which offers 

promise of improving our population census-taking 

should be closed to the group. Indeed the group 

needs to address all the major aspects of the censustaking environment and then of the census-taking 

itself . . . ” Keane wanted to establish the decennial 

census planning staff by July 1987 and hoped to have 

123 William P. Butz, “Out of the Box: Again and Again: Roger 

Herriot at the Census Bureau,” Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Government Statistics Section, 1995, 

pp. 71–76. See especially, “Table 1, Roger Herriot’s Major 

Innovations,” p. 75. Email from William P. Butz to David M. 

Pemberton, November 3, 2010. 124 William P. Butz, “Out of the Box: Again and Again: Roger 

Herriot at the Census Bureau,” Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Government Statistics Section, 1995, p. 73. 125 Memorandum from Jack Keane to Louis Kincannon, “21st 

Century Decennial Census Study Group,” March 20, 1987. Prior to 

his appointment as head of the Census Bureau, Keane had been 

an expert in strategic planning. Long-range planning for future 

decennial censuses was one of the functions that Keane wanted to 

institutionalize.

a staff of about 20 people working on it within a year 

or two.126

Kincannon discussed offering Johnson the position 

as head of the planning staff as early as March 1987.127

However, the Department of Commerce expressed 

some reservations over the responsibilities of the new 

staff and its position in the Census Bureau’s organization.128 The position was approved and offered 

to Johnson in the spring of 1988. Johnson accepted 

the appointment. Kincannon’s marching orders for 

Johnson included a mandate to examine approaches 

that could “simplify the basic decennial census and 

concentrate on constitutionally related requirements,” 

and “expand and make more-timely subnational 

demographic and housing data collected outside of 

the basic decennial census.”129

For several months, these two teams appear to have 

worked independently of one another.130 Butz kept 

his boss, Kincannon, generally aware of the progress 

Herriot’s informal group was making.131 Meanwhile, 

Kincannon may have paid more attention to 

Johnson’s reports on the expanding activities of the 

21st Century Planning Staff. However, as time passed, 

Herriot and Johnson became increasingly aware of 

each other’s work, particularly their shared interest in 

developing alternative concepts of the decennial census, such as a short-form-only census coupled with an 

intercensal rolling sample for collecting sample data. 

In late spring 1988, the Census Bureau’s executive 

staff held a one day offsite meeting to discuss the 

future of the decennial census, focusing on Herriot’s 

proposal for an Integrated System of Area Statistics. 

Senior staff may have concluded that the time had 

come for the two groups to work more closely 

together to develop a more unified plan. Members of 

126 Memorandum from Jack Keane to Louis Kincannon, “21st 

Century Decennial Census Study Group,” March 20, 1987. In this 

memo, Keane summarized 11 topics and trends the planning staff 

should examine, including technological advances, organizational 

structure, census marketing, alternative data collection procedures, 

legal issues, questionnaire content, and residence rules. 127 Letter from Bruce Johnson to C. Louis Kincannon, March 27, 

1987. 128 Memorandum from Kay Bulow, assistant secretary [of 

Commerce] for Administration to John G. Keane, “Staffing of 21st 

Century Decennial Census Planning Staff,” December 28, 1987. Until 

these issues were resolved, Bulow asked Keane to “put all recruiting 

and hiring actions affecting this Staff on hold.” 129 Bruce Johnson, Roger Herriot, and Sandra Rowland, 

“Directions for the Future of the U.S. Decennial Census in the 21st 

Century,” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Social Statistics Section, 1989, pp. 339–344. Sandra Rowland was 

one of the first people Johnson hired after his selection as chief of 

the 21st Century Decennial Census Planning Staff. 130 Email from Bruce Johnson to David M. Pemberton, 

November 14, 2010. 131 Interview with C. Louis Kincannon, December 8, 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau 47

both teams attended the meeting, and a member of 

Johnson’s staff prepared a report summarizing the 

meeting’s activities.132

Since Herriot was the leader of one group and a 

sometime collaborator with the second, it is not surprising that the proposals the two teams generated 

shared several components:

• Decoupling the sample (long-form) questionnaire 

from the decennial census and distributing the 

collection of sample data across the intercensal 

period.

• Collecting data more frequently and releasing estimates of the population, housing, and characteristics of areas with large populations more often.

• Producing intercensal survey data for smaller 

areas.

• Expanding the population estimates program and 

initiating more timely release of intercensal data 

gleaned from administrative records.

A SHORTER DECENNIAL CENSUS

Census Bureau officials were well aware that collecting sample data during the census added operational 

difficulties and increased cost. Separating sample 

data collection from the mandatory questions needed 

for reapportionment and redistricting was an attractive option to those who were reconceptualizing the 

census.

Both the Herriot and Johnson groups proposed 

resolving the apportionment issue by conducting a 

shorter decennial census, to be taken in years ending in “0.” This census would still include the entire 

population of the United States and all housing units 

and group quarters. A reduced set of short-form 

data (e.g., age, race, Hispanic origin, sex) would be 

collected from the residents of each living quarters. 

It would also include limited housing unit data (e.g., 

vacancy status, units in structure, and tenure). With 

only a few questions on the census form, the array 

of data products would be limited. In addition to 

the redistricting and reapportionment data, simple cross-tabulations of age, race, and sex would 

be made available for a wide variety of geographic 

areas.133

132 Sheree W. Alston, “Discussions on the Future of the Decennial 

Census,” October 14, 1988. 133 Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, “ISAS,” pp. 9–10; Bruce 

Johnson, Roger Herriot, and Sandra Rowland, “Directions for 

the Future of the U.S. Decennial Census in the 21st Century,” 

in Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social 

Statistics Section, 1989, pp. 339–344.

To replace the data gathered by the decennial census 

long form, Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy suggested introducing a new survey that would consist 

of rolling samples and would provide data for states, 

MSAs, and areas with a population of 50,000 or more 

on an ongoing basis with a new sample coming online 

each month.134 They proposed a core set of questions 

supplemented by a number of demographic and 

housing modules that would vary over the decade. 

Data collection would include a telephone survey 

and a personal visit survey, with the latter serving 

as a vehicle for including households without telephones. The sample size would be about 200,000 

per month, 2.5 million annually, and about 25 million 

per decade. A sample this size would produce reliable 

data for larger areas (i.e., states and larger MSAs) on 

a monthly or quarterly basis. Reliable annual estimates could also be calculated for population groups 

of 50,000 or more.135

Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland proposed implementing one or more sampling procedures between 

censuses to collect the more detailed demographic 

and housing information lost when the long form was 

separated from the simple census. They presented 

three sampling options and emphasized that these 

alternatives were not mutually exclusive.

The first option would be for the Census Bureau to 

collect a mid-decade national sample census. Since 

the Census Bureau was already authorized to conduct a mid-decade census (refer to the “Mid-Decade 

Census Bill Becomes Law” section), this survey could 

be substituted as a way to collect tract-level data at 

lower cost than with a complete census.136

A second option was to apply a modified version of 

the rolling sample concept devised by Leslie Kish, 

discussed earlier in this chapter. In this version of 

the concept, contiguous states would be sampled 

in groups of roughly six states per year with new 

samples selected from those states each month. The 

sampling rate would be about 20 percent of all housing units. Demographic and housing data would be 

cumulated annually for states, counties, cities, governmental units, tracts, and other small areas. Each 

state would fall into the sample once every 10 years. 

Questionnaire content would be similar to that found 

on the census long form. Telephone interviewing 

would be the primary data collection methodology. 

134 This new survey would be based on Leslie Kish’s work on 

rolling samples described above. 135 Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, “ISAS,” pp. 4–5. 136 Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland, pp. 341–342.
48 U.S. Census Bureau

As with the mid-decade sample census, the rolling 

sample would require reliable population estimates to 

serve as weighting controls. Data for different groups 

of states would not be directly comparable because 

the data would be collected at different times.137

The third sampling alternative was a large-scale 

monthly survey that would include all geographic 

areas containing at least 100,000 people and produce annual estimates of population size, the number of housing unit, and their characteristics. Data 

collection would consist of telephone interviews and 

personal visits. The results would be cumulated over 

the course of a year to achieve the needed sample 

size. This alternative would produce comparable 

statistics for states, MSAs, and cities of 100,000 or 

more people but would not supply small-area data. 

Questionnaire content would be determined after 

extensive consultation with data users. The samples would be nonoverlapping, with a group of core 

questions supplemented by subsamples containing 

differing inquiries.138

INTERCENSAL DATA FOR SMALL AREAS

Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy suggested collecting and publishing tract statistics for a different 

group of MSAs annually during years “2” through “9” 

each decade. They grouped the nation’s MSAs into 

eight sets of approximately equal sample size and 

proposed to interview one set per year for 8 years. 

The data for each tract would be updated once per 

decade and would be considerably less extensive 

than that collected for larger areas. They maintained 

that the primary use of tract data was to compare 

different tracts within MSAs rather than among them. 

Their approach emphasized collecting all the tract 

data within an MSA at one time, while leaving MSAs in 

other parts of the country for later data collection.139

A second component of the group’s small-area 

data program consisted of collecting data on small 

governmental units with populations of less than 

50,000 people and possibly, nonhousehold populations (residents of group quarters such as college 

dormitories, correctional institutions, nursing homes, 

and military quarters). Data collection would take 

place once per decade during the year following 

the census. It would focus on small towns and rural 

areas of 2,500 or fewer people and would consist of 

137 Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland, p. 342. 138 Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland, p. 342. 139 Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, “ISAS,” pp. 6–7.

a sample of approximately 4.6 million households. 

Most of the interviews would be done by telephone. 

Questionnaire content would be mainly determined 

by the requirements of federal and state programs 

for small areas.140

The Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland proposal for 

small-area data was incorporated into the group’s 

plan for one or more intercensal surveys described 

above.

EXPANDING THE POPULATION ESTIMATES 

PROGRAM

In the late 1980s, the Census Bureau’s population 

estimates program calculated monthly national estimates for age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin. Annual 

estimates of state and county populations by age and 

sex were also produced. The estimates program also 

generated total population estimates for approximately 36,000 governmental units every other year.

As part of its overall program for a reengineered census, the Herriot group proposed modest changes to 

the estimates program. The program would continue 

to provide state and county population estimates 

annually and update estimates for all governmental 

units every other year, but it would rely on administrative records to update the components of change. 

The group hoped that factoring in data from the 

new large-scale survey described above would bring 

about improved estimation. The estimates program 

could also be used in the weighting process for the 

new large survey to reduce coverage bias.141

The group composed of Johnson, Herriot, and 

Rowland, among others, urged a more extensive 

expansion of the estimates program than the group 

originally organized by Herriot had suggested. A key 

element in the Johnson group’s proposal focused on 

reducing the time lag between the reference date 

of the population estimates and the dates the estimates were released. These lags varied from 1 to 2 

months for the national estimates to 12 to 15 months 

for the county and governmental unit estimates. 

The expanded estimates program would require 

monthly population estimates for states and annual 

estimates for substate areas. They recommended a 

lag time for producing the estimates of no more than 

6 months and concurrently upgrading the agency’s 

computer systems to process the greater volume of 

140 Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, “ISAS,” p. 8. 141 Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, “ISAS,” p. 10.
U.S. Census Bureau 49

administrative records that would be required to produce the more frequent estimates. Methodological 

innovations would also be needed to extend the estimates program to small geographic areas.142

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO 

PROPOSALS

With one exception, the differences between the two 

groups’ proposals were relatively minor. The Herriot 

group’s initial proposal for an Integrated System of 

Area Statistics (ISAS) relied on the address list the 

Census Bureau compiled prior to taking the decennial census. During the census, enumerators updated 

the address list as they collected information from 

nonrespondents. The revised version, entitled the 

Decade Census Program, pointed out the importance of maintaining the Census Bureau’s address 

list throughout the decade to serve as the base from 

which ongoing survey samples would be selected.143

CENSUS BUREAU REVIEWS OF THE 

PROPOSALS

According to Associate Director Butz, Herriot was 

aware of many of his proposal’s strong points but 

felt he needed a thorough understanding of its 

weaknesses—both to try to resolve some of them 

and to be fully aware of the scope of future work.144

He realized his ideas needed a critique from people 

knowledgeable about the various elements of census 

and survey-taking. Herriot suggested the names of a 

number of Census Bureau experts and managers as 

candidates for a review panel. He and Butz reviewed 

the proposed membership list, and Butz appointed 

the members of the Demographic Area Committee.145

If Herriot wanted a thorough critique of the ISAS 

proposal, the Demographic Area Committee did 

not disappoint him.146 The committee identified 

several problem areas that members felt should be 

addressed in future revisions:

142 Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland, p. 342. 143 Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, and William F. McCarthy, 

“The Decade Census Program–A New Approach for Meeting 

the Nation’s Needs for Sub-National Data,” Sept. 27, 1988 

(draft); published in the Proceedings of the American Statistical 

Association, Social Statistics Section, 1989, pp. 351–355. 144 Email from William P. Butz to David M. Pemberton, 

November 3, 2010. 145 Email from William P. Butz to David M. Pemberton, November 

3, 2010. 146 The Demographic Area Committee to review the proposal 

consisted of Charles Alexander, Richard Blass, David Chapman, 

Arthur Dukakis, Lawrence Ernst, William Hill, Lawrence Long, Dawn 

Nelson, Leonard Norry, Paula Schneider, and Preston J. Waite 

(chair), “Report of the Demographic Area Committee to Critique 

ISAS,” September 2, 1988.

• The cost of implementing ISAS in its entirety might 

well exceed the whole decennial census budget. 

Committee members suggested that budgetary 

cutbacks in any given year were likely to lead to 

difficult short-term trade-offs, including possible 

reductions in sample size, elimination of some 

questions, or other undesirable compromises.147

• Reviewers feared that ISAS might engender conflicts with other government agencies, notably 

with the OMB, because OMB would see multiple 

Census Bureau operations taking place simultaneously (ISAS, CPS, the American Housing Survey, 

the Consumer Expenditure Survey, and others) and 

demand that some of these data collection efforts 

be combined. The reviewers argued that the 

Census Bureau would find itself in the unpleasant 

position of trying to mediate between OMB and 

other government agencies that feared the integrity of their surveys might be compromised if the 

Census Bureau acceded to OMB’s requests.148

• Collecting census-type information for groups of 

states, metropolitan areas, and cities in different 

years over the decade would pose another set 

of problems. Since these data would be used to 

distribute billions of dollars in federal and state aid 

and expenditures, the reviewers suggested that 

some jurisdictions were likely to complain that 

their labor force data and other characteristics 

were collected at the peak of the business cycle 

while other areas’ data were collected at less prosperous times. Presumably, the top of the business 

cycle would represent the most prosperous period 

for any given area; jurisdictions whose data were 

collected during the trough of the business cycle 

would probably display more negative economic 

statistics, making them eligible for more federal 

and state spending. Changes in the year data were 

collected from one area to another could result in 

an unfair distribution of federal and state monies.149

• Committee members were concerned that ISAS 

did not fully address the increasing demand for 

small-area data by business, government, and 

planners of all kinds. Instead, it focused on providing annual data for large areas (e.g., states, 

metropolitan areas, and places containing populations of at least 50,000 people) while relegating 

147 “Report of the Demographic Area Committee,” pp. 2–3. 148 “Report of the Demographic Area Committee,” p. 3. 149 “Report of the Demographic Area Committee,” pp. 3–4.
50 U.S. Census Bureau

small towns, tracts, and user-defined areas to data 

releases appearing once or twice per decade.150

The committee pointed out that implementing ISAS 

presented potential problems for internal Census 

Bureau data users. The ISAS proposal included a 

reduced set of questions for the intercensal sample 

used to produce small-area statistics. The loss of data 

on residence 5 years ago, place or country of birth, 

citizenship, and year of immigration constituted a 

particular problem for the estimates and projections 

program. While ISAS would provide more frequent 

survey data on migration, it would do so at the cost 

of a comprehensive, simultaneous set of migration 

data for all parts of the country, which was used 

for standardization and controls. Similarly, since 

ISAS was designed to provide only minimal data at 

the block level, it could restrict the content of the 

TIGER database. The loss of data in the proposed 

ISAS would also affect a number of current surveys 

because some of the information used to design efficient samples would no longer be available from the 

census.151

Johnson’s 21st Century Decennial Census Planning 

Staff also reviewed the proposed ISAS, but its evaluation was not as one-sided as that of the Demographic 

Area Committee.152 In addition to noting many of 

the same drawbacks the latter group found, the 

Johnson’s staff summarized a number of strong 

points:

• ISAS would provide new intercensal data to the 

federal statistical community and result in faster 

delivery of decennial census information to external data users (because of the smaller number of 

variables to be tabulated).153

• ISAS could produce improvements in data quality because the intercensal components would 

probably allow the Census Bureau to hire full-time 

interviewers to administer the questionnaires. This 

would also spread some of the peak demand for 

interviewers from the census year (years ending in 

“0”) across the period between censuses.154

• The use of computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) would allow for the more efficient use of 

data processing technology by reducing the time 

and equipment needed for data capture of paper 

150 “Report of the Demographic Area Committee,” pp. 4–8. 151 “Report of the Demographic Area Committee,” pp. 9–11.

152 Sheree W. Alston, “Discussions on ISAS as an Alternative to 

the Decennial Census,” September 22, 1988. 153 “Discussions on ISAS as an Alternative,” p. 2. 154 “Discussions on ISAS as an Alternative,” pp. 2–5.

questionnaires. The presence of CATI facilities in 

each region would also reduce the time needed for 

telephone follow-up during the decennial census. 

CATI technology is particularly compatible with 

administering rolling sample surveys because the 

equipment will be used over the intercensal period 

rather than only in the decennial census year. 

Ongoing use of CATI facilities could reduce interviewer variance and improve retention rates.155

• Response rates during the decennial census may 

increase because there will be no long form to 

administer. Respondent burden would be reduced 

during the census but increased by the intercensal 

surveys, with the result that respondent burden 

would probably be about the same over the entire 

decade.156

• ISAS might be cheaper and more efficient than 

the current decennial census in the long run 

because the resulting data files would be smaller 

and easier to manage and update; states and 

survey sponsors may want to piggyback on ISAS 

allowing for cost sharing; and the program could 

reduce funding vulnerability by spreading the cost 

of census-taking over the entire decade rather 

than retaining a very large peak expenditure in the 

decennial census year.157

Not surprisingly, virtually none of these early suggestions for intercensal collection of detailed sample data was adopted for the American Community 

Survey without substantial modification. Subsequent 

chapters will discuss how and why some components 

of these early proposals were modified and others 

were rejected. For example, Kish’s concept of rolling 

samples became a crucial component of the American 

Community Survey, but not the version Herriot and his 

colleagues described in the late 1980s. However, these 

pioneering efforts succeeded in jostling the thinking 

of senior Census Bureau executives. Herriot, Johnson, 

and their colleagues produced alternatives to the 

conventional wisdom about census-taking in the 

United States. Following significant, sometimes harsh, 

criticism of the high cost of the 1990 Census, coupled 

with an increase in the undercount, the Census Bureau 

chose to devote significant resources to reconceptualizing the decennial census along some of the same 

lines suggested by the Herriot and Johnson teams half 

a decade earlier.

155 Ibid., p. 4. 156 Ibid., pp. 4–5. 157 Ibid., p. 5.
U.S. Census Bureau 51

THE STATUS OF INTERCENSAL DATA 

COLLECTION PROGRAMS AT THE END OF 

THE 1980s

Toward the end of the 1980s, a number of ideas that 

would later become key components of the ACS were 

circulating throughout the Census Bureau. These 

included: separating the minimal census data needed 

for reapportionment and redistricting from the more 

voluminous data collected on the census sample 

form, creating a master address file that would be 

maintained between censuses, adapting rolling samples to the collection and dissemination of intercensal 

data, and identifying ways to produce small-area data 

between censuses.

The proposals advanced thus far had been fairly general in nature. While suggesting there were important 

linkages among the various elements, these had not 

been rigorously analyzed. The needs of data users 

had been acknowledged but not yet solicited in 

detail. Potential changes in Census Bureau organization, data collection operations, and data capture 

and processing requirements had been hinted at but 

not described in detail. Conceptual and methodological issues abounded with regard to sample size and 

design; modified residence rules; changing from a 

fixed reference date to reference periods; and in the 

meaning and use of multiyear, cumulated data on 

educational attainment, journey to work, and income. 

In the aftermath of the 1990 Census, the Census 

Bureau selected Charles Alexander to provide conceptual coherence and technical expertise in putting 

the continuous measurement program together. That 

program will be examined in the next chapter.
This page is intentionally blank.
U.S. Census Bureau 53

Chapter 2. The Emergence of Continuous Measurement

. . . the demand for statistical information will continue 

to increase rapidly. This is an inevitable concomitant 

of the growing size and complexity of a nation 

in which the interdependence of individuals and 

institutions is constantly increasing.

—A. Ross Eckler, “The Future of the Bureau,” 19721

INTRODUCTION

At the end of the 1980s, U.S. Census Bureau planners, 

following in the tracks of former Director Ross Eckler 

(quoted above), envisioned ways of meeting demand 

for more data and a more frequent release of such 

data. The challenges of that demand included rising 

costs, tighter budgets, and an insistance that Census 

Bureau officials lower the burden on respondents. 

In conjunction with the development of these plans, 

cost overruns and the undercount in the 1990 Census 

generated external support and funding needed to 

pursue new data collection methods.

The planners reshaped elements from the Decade 

Census Program along with Leslie Kish's proposals on rolling sample surveys into a design for a 

Continuous Measurement System.2 Under this proposed system, the Census Bureau would no longer 

collect detailed demographic, financial, educational, 

housing, and employment data during the decennial 

census on a long-form questionnaire sent to a sample of households. In place of the long form, the new 

system would instead collect these data through a 

continuous sample survey conducted throughout the 

decade. This decoupling of the collection of detailed 

data from the enumeration of the population was one 

of several census design recommendations considered by census planners. Continuous measurement 

emerged as the preferred alternative census design 

strategy because it would produce more timely 

data and had the greatest potential for reducing the 

overall cost of census-taking. Ongoing data collection 

activities associated with a continuous survey could 

also achieve improvements in the quality and completeness of sampling frames for intercensal surveys 

that formerly benefited only from address updating 

1

 A. Ross Eckler, “The Future of the Bureau,” Chapter V of The 

Bureau of the Census, New York, Praeger Publishers, 1972, p. 208. 2 These are described in Chapter 1. Refer to “Cumulative Rolling 

Samples: An Alternative to a Mid-Decade Census?”

activities clustered near the end of the decade, just 

prior to a decennial census. 

In 1995, challenges to the estimates of cost savings arose by the time the Census Bureau prepared 

to launch tests of the Continuous Measurement 

Survey.3 Additionally, key stakeholders believed that 

the Census Bureau had not yet dispelled the fears 

of some data users that they would lose data if the 

Census Bureau replaced the decennial's long-form 

survey with a Continuous Measurement Survey. Such 

fears were especially pressing for rural and small governments and small population groups.4 In the wake 

of those fears and as Congress threatened to cut 

its budget in 1995, the Census Bureau announced it 

would work towards running both a long-form survey 

and a continuous measurement instrument in 2000. 

This chapter covers how the Census Bureau went 

from an open-ended discussion of an intercensal 

sample survey as a part of larger census reform to 

concrete and detailed proposals for a Continuous 

Measurement Census Test to take place in 1996.

DEVELOPMENT OF SUPPORT FOR REFORM OF 

COLLECTION OF LONG-FORM DATA: 

1989–1993

Need for Change? The Status of Proposals: 

1988–1990

As the 1990 Census approached, Census Bureau 

executives advocated making a major overhaul in 

decennial data collection methods. This would provide timely community-level data, while also anticipating and heading off long-term problems in the 

field and reduce budgets. The repeated failure of 

3 The General Accounting Office (later renamed Government 

Accountability Office) and the National Academy of Science’s 

Committee on National Statistics’ Panel on Census Requirements 

in the Year 2000 and Beyond made such statements the most 

prominently. Statement of L. Nye Stevens, director, Planning and 

Reporting, General Government Division, Decennial Census: Test 

Design Proposals Are Promising, But Fundamental Reform Is Still 

at Risk, GAO/T-GGD-94-12, October 7, 1993, pp. 5–6; memo from 

Charles H. Alexander, Demographic Statistical Methods Division 

to Robert Tortora, associate director for Statistical Design, 

Methodology, and Standards, “Further Exploration of Issues Raised 

at the CNSTAT Requirements Panel Meeting,” Internal Census 

Bureau Reports, CM-13, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 

January 31, 1994; and Committee on National Statistics (CNSTSAT), 

National Research Council, Modernizing the U.S. Census, National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 126–131. 4 As detailed later in this chapter, metropolitan planners, rural 

advocates, and officials from small local governments lobbied 

Congress on behalf of keeping the decennial long form. So did the 

CNSTAT panels evaluating the Census Bureau’s plans for the 2000 

Census.
54 U.S. Census Bureau

mid-decade census proposals to find funding, most 

recently in 1986, left the Census Bureau looking for 

alternative vehicles to deliver such data to the public. Deputy Director C. Louis Kincannon hired Bruce 

Johnson to build the 21st Century Decennial Census 

Planning Staff (21st Century Staff) to do strategic 

planning. From 1988 to 1990, this team investigated 

ways to provide more intercensal data and investigate 

problems that would likely plague traditional methods of census data collection.5 For example, staff 

members analyzed how response rates had fallen for 

household surveys and predicted that trend might 

afflict the 1990 Census. They also noted the Census 

Bureau had trouble recruiting enough enumerators 

for its 1988 prelist operations and predicted that 

the 1990 Census would have similar difficulty.6 The 

21st Century Staff in 1988–1989 conducted surveys 

of senior Census Bureau staff and held several offsite daylong meetings of Census Bureau executives 

and other personnel, pulling together their ideas for 

change.7 Finding widespread, though not universal, 

support within the Census Bureau for restructuring 

the decennial, some staff prepared to move forward 

with testing and evaluations of proposals. 

One of the proposals the 21st Century Staff evaluated 

was put forward by Roger Herriot, David Bateman, 

and William McCarthy. From 1988–1990, Herriot was 

working at the Census Bureau as a senior adviser to 

William Butz, the associate director for Demographic 

Programs. Herriot persuaded Bateman and McCarthy, 

two Census Bureau experts, to help him develop 

ideas for new data collection methods. Their proposal 

called for establishing a Decade Census Program 

(DCP)8 that would replace the decennial census’s 

long-form sample with a set of intercensal surveys. 

The proposed system broke new ground by using 

data primarily collected from monthly telephone 

surveys in place of the decennial census’s millions 

of mailed sample questionnaires that collected data 

based on census day. The idea was also novel in 

5 Memorandum from Jack Keane to Louis Kincannon, “21st 

Century Decennial Census Study Group,” March 20, 1987. 6 The prelist operation was where the Census Bureau sent 

enumerators to canvass geographic areas where it lacked address 

ranges and had them compile a residential address mailing file for 

the area along with the geocodes for addresses. Bruce Johnson, 

Roger Herriot, and Sandra Rowland, “Directions for the Future of 

the U.S. Decennial Census in the 21st Century,” Proceedings of the 

American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, 1989, 

p. 16. 7 21st Century Decennial Planning Staff, “Overview of Issues and 

Research Needs,” n.d., but after November 1988, pp. 8–9 and 21st 

Century Decennial Planning Staff, “Questionnaire,” September 1988, 

pp. 8–12. 8 The DCP was originally named the Integrated System of Area 

Statistics.

that its surveys would employ computer-assisted 

telephone interviewing (CATI) in an era before the 

Census Bureau’s household surveys used such technology as their first means of contact. In addition, 

the DCP called for the Census Bureau to survey one 

group of states each year then move to a different 

group of states the next year until it had “rolled” 

across the entire nation over the course of the 

decade. By this means, it would generate tract-level 

data once each decade for any given metropolitan 

statistical area (MSA). 

The agency would provide small-area estimates for 

population and housing characteristics for a different 

group of states and MSAs each year. The DCP also 

proposed a second survey to provide estimates annually for the total populations of all states and large 

areas, such as regions and MSAs.9 These estimates 

would include only a core set of characteristics previously covered by the census long form and provide 

several benefits for the decennial census. This reduction in the number of questions asked would lower 

the response burden on those being interviewed.10 It 

also would reduce the time needed to tabulate and 

publish data, an improvement over the release of 

tract data from the 1980 Census 3 years after it was 

collected.

Some other proposals for increasing intercensal data 

collection or overhauling the decennial census had 

long-standing support and continued to find backers within the agency. For example, former Census 

Bureau Director A. Ross Eckler’s book, The Future of 

the Bureau, recommended shortening the decennial 

9 Herriot and his colleagues thought they could reduce the 

questionnaire content because they believed that only a core 

set of 12–15 content items were needed at the small domain or 

tract level for federal programs. Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, 

and William F. McCarthy, “The Decade Census Program–A New 

Approach for Meeting the Nation’s Needs for Sub-National Data,” 

September 27, 1988, pp. 4, Appendix 1, 3, 6–7. For the state of the 

Census Bureau’s use of telephone interviews see Ramula Basu, 

“A Monograph on CASIC,” January 1997, pp. 3–6. For the Census 

Bureau’s release of small-area data from the 1980 Census see 

Census Bureau, 1980 Census of Population and Housing History, 

Chapter 8, pp. 8-69 to 8-77. Herriot and his coauthors had said in 

an earlier version of the proposal that at best, decennial census 

data were 2 years old when released, but averaged 7 years 

old. Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, and William F. McCarthy, 

“Oral Presentation Notes on ISAS–Integrated System of Area 

Statistics–A New Approach for Meeting the Nation’s Needs for 

Sub-National Data,” May 3, 1988 in Sheree Alston, principal 

reporter, “Discussions on the Future of the Decennial Census,” 21st 

Century Decennial Planning Staff paper presented to the Technical 

Advisory Committees, October 14, 1988, p. 60.

The specifics of the Decade Census Program are set out 

in greater detail in Chapter 1. Refer to Chapter 1 section titled 

“Introduce a New, Large-Scale Survey to Collect Detailed Data.” 10 Response burden refers to the efforts or perceived efforts 

of respondents in answering surveys, such as providing time and 

personal information.
U.S. Census Bureau 55

questionnaires and using the resulting cost savings to 

run annual sample surveys or a mid-decade census.11

In the late 1970s, both the Census Bureau and the 

U.S. Commerce Department recommended that the 

Census Bureau meet intercensal data needs with a 

mid-decade sample census.12 By the late 1980s, the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau put 

forward plans to provide intercensal and state-level 

data via an expanded Current Population Survey.13

The 21st Century Staff, a combination of senior and 

mid-level census staff assembled to plan for the 2000 

Census and beyond, encountered agency personnel 

advocating each of these alternatives to the DCP in 

the Census Bureau off-site meetings in 1988–1989.14

Supporters of the DCP had to contend with a wide 

array of Census Bureau concerns about the feasibility and advisability of implementing the proposed 

program. Within weeks of DCP’s unveiling, a committee of statisticians and supervisors from within the 

Census Bureau brainstormed all the problems likely 

to arise if it was implemented. The committee, called 

11 Eckler, p. 212.

12 Census Bureau and Office of Federal Statistical Policy and 

Standards, “Mid-decade Program Assessment,” September 28,1979, 

p. 2, attachment to Secretary of Commerce to the Honorable 

James T. McIntyre, Jr., director of the Office and Management and 

Budget, n.d. but cleared for transmittal June 30, 1980. 13 Alan R. Tupek and Preston J. Waite, “Sample Expansion Plans 

for the Current Population Survey,” Paper presented at the Joint 

Statistical Meetings, August 1990, pp. 71–77. 14 When the 21st Century Staff polled Census Bureau 

executives and senior staff on Herriot’s proposal and other 

ideas for overhauling the decennial census, they found a split 

opinion. An October 1988 questionnaire asked them about the 

DCP and the three options noted above. It also queried them 

about other options including: replacing decennial enumeration 

with sampling for the count; expanding the Current Population 

Survey (CPS) to replace parts of the decennial census; and using 

administrative records instead of censuses or surveys to collect 

some data. The 21st Century Planning Staff found that 84 percent 

of senior Census Bureau staff favored further research on the 

DCP. The questionnaire also asked respondents how strongly 

they agreed with the statement that “the DCP would facilitate the 

success of the decennial census.” The DCP averaged 5.7, where a 

score of 7 indicated “strong agreement” and 1 indicated “strong 

disagreement” with that statement. The questionnaire treated the 

DCP separately from other proposals and found support for each. 

When the 21st Century Staff asked senior staff to rank proposals 

other than the DCP, the mid-decade sample census tied for first 

along with cutting the decennial questionnaire to 10–14 questions. 

A full census done mid-decade came in third. A vast majority of 

Census Bureau management favored the generalized notion of 

changing the methods of collecting or processing decennial census 

data. However, support declined for specific major changes such as 

shifting the long-form questions to intercensal surveys. On average, 

respondents were neutral when asked if that proposal would 

“facilitate the success of the decennial census.” One respondent 

commented that the decennial census might be overly complex, but 

it still provided the baseline for intercensal surveys. 21st Century 

Decennial Planning Staff, “Overview of Issues and Research Needs,” 

n.d., pp. 1–2, 8–9, but after November 1988, pp. 8–9; 21st Century 

Decennial Planning Staff, “Questionnaire,” September 1988, pp. 

8–12; and Sheree Alston, principal reporter, “Discussions on the 

Future of the Decennial Census,” 21st Century Decennial Planning 

Staff paper presented to the Technical Advisory Committees, 

October 14, 1988, p. 23.

the Demographic Area Committee to Critique the 

DCP, identified potential problems including likely 

opposition from officials from MSAs and states whose 

jurisdictions were not included in the sample and 

estimates in a given year. Those committee members 

suggested that the cost of the DCP that Herriot had 

calculated to be $1.8 billion likely would be higher, 

perhaps far higher, than conducting the census longform survey.15 In addition, the Demographic Area 

Committee suggested that budgets for the program 

could be cut in succeeding years, destroying its ability to deliver estimates based on cumulated samples. 

Some of the evaluators even remarked that deep cuts 

could doom the agency’s ability to provide estimates 

for new sets of MSAs and states of a quality comparable to those it had already provided to previously 

sampled groups of states.16

At the end of 1988, Census Bureau executives prepared to make a decision on whether to pursue funding for a major research and development project. 

Among the alternative data collection methods, the 

DCP was the most developed and had received the 

most discussion. The 21st Century Staff singled out 

the DCP and asked the executives to come to a consensus on whether they found it promising enough to 

begin consulting “users, oversight groups, and other 

outside stakeholders.” However, based on the results 

of the survey of senior staff, results from the off-sites, 

and the Demography Area Committee’s critiques, the 

21st Century Staff recommended to Census Bureau 

executives that the Census Bureau move forward with 

research on several fronts, not just the DCP.17 The 21st 

Century Staff noted that research projects should 

begin by concentrating on elements common to all 

the proposals, such as ways to update the master 

address list.18 The associate director in charge of 

decennial operations felt the same way, and said that 

the Census Bureau ought to proceed with research 

on sampling methods. This method would potentially 

help several of the suggested designs, ranging from 

15 Charles Alexander et. al, “Report of the Demographic Area 

Committee to Critique the Proposed DCP,” September 30, 1988, 

pp. 6–7, 16–17. The Demographic Area Committee did not supply a 

cost estimate for the long form. Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, 

“The Decade Census Program,” pp. 19–20. 16 Charles Alexander et al, “Report of the Demographic Area 

Committee to Critique the Proposed DCP,” September 30, 1988, 

pp. 5–7. The committee’s concerns with the Decade Census Program 

are set out in greater detail in Chapter 1, “Census Bureau Reviews of 

the Proposals.” 17 Bruce Johnson to Executive Staff, memorandum, October 28, 

1988, pp. 1–2. 18 21st Century Staff, “Overview and Issues,” p. 4.
56 U.S. Census Bureau

sampling for nonresponse follow-up and the DCP to a 

sample-only census.19

Executives and senior staff of the Census Bureau 

scheduled a December 1988 off-site meeting to consider plans for the future of the agency’s decennial 

efforts. In advance of this meeting, the 21st Century 

Staff sent every Census Bureau executive a binder 

with the DCP proposal, the committee’s critique, and 

the staff’s analysis of the focus groups and survey.20

Accompanying that binder, supporters of the DCP 

circulated a proposal for a DCP pilot study and plan. 

It called for testing to begin in selected areas from 

1991–1995. Under this plan, the DCP system could be 

fully operational nationwide by 1995.21

However, Bruce Johnson, head of the 21st Century 

Staff, floated a counterproposal arguing that the 

mid-decade sample census solved the DCP’s equity 

problems between states and thus required less 

research. Referring to cost estimates that showed the 

DCP or other intercensal data collection increasing 

Census Bureau spending and mindful of federally 

mandated spending caps, Johnson proposed a major 

departure for the decennial census. Johnson proposed requiring states, local governments, and other 

federal agencies to pay for a large share of the data 

collection and reporting.22

While Johnson was sending out his idea to add a 

mid-decade sample modification to the DCP, Charles 

(Chip) Alexander drew up a brand new alternative. In 

1988, Alexander had worked as a senior mathematical statistician and branch chief within the Statistical 

Methods Division.23 He had also served as the editor 

of the Demographic Area Committee’s critique of 

the DCP prior to writing an alternative to it. He said 

his new plan was a compilation of ideas from the 

committee’s members, showing that its concepts 

extended beyond himself or his division.

19 Charles Jones to C. L. Kincannon, “Year 2000 Planning,” 

memorandum, February 9, 1989, p. 2. 20 21st Century Staff, “Overview of Issues and Research Needs,” 

pp. 8–9. 21 21st Century Staff, “Overview of Issues and Research Needs,” 

pp. 8–9. 22 Bruce Johnson to “the File,” “Possible Revisions to the Decade 

Census Program,” memorandum, October 28, 1998, 

pp. 1–4. The memo was included in with the blue binder of reports 

sent to everyone attending the December 8, 1988, off-site meeting. 

In the memo, Johnson did not directly refer to the Gramm-RudmanHollings Act spending caps and mandatory budget reductions 

for each federal agency, but he did in a 1990 report. Census 

Bureau, Deep Currents: The Case for Change, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, February 1990. 23 Later renamed Demographic Statistical Methods Division 

[DSMD].

Alexander’s alternative likely circulated only among 

experts in the Census Bureau at the time but would 

have huge ramifications within a couple of years.24

He recommended making the rolling sample survey 

national. Like Johnson, Alexander thought the DCP’s 

sampling of one set of states each year was untenable. In Alexander’s plan, the Census Bureau would 

survey one-ninth of the blocks or tracts in every 

county or MSA each year. The Census Bureau would 

use survey results to make estimates for those blocks 

surveyed. The Census Bureau would make small-area, 

model-based projections for all blocks not sampled 

that year based on the estimates from similar blocks 

in the sample, changes in the master address list for 

the block in question, and the most recent population 

data for the block from a short-form only decennial. 

From the estimates and the model-based projections, the Census Bureau would create census tractlevel data and some preliminary estimates for larger 

geographic areas. In its 1988 incarnation, Alexander’s 

plan would not entail multiyear estimates.25, 26 In a 

1990–1991 revision, he stated why by explaining that 

small-area data users would neither understand nor 

accept such estimates.27 Estimates for counties and 

MSAs would not rely on projections but would aggregate from survey results. While doing survey work 

in the field, interviewers also could spot demolished 

buildings or potential problem areas for the Census 

Bureau’s proposed master address list. In blocks 

where interviewers spotted major new construction 

or demolished buildings or where building permits 

or postal service records showed major changes, the 

Census Bureau would do extra sampling. Alexander 

sent his original idea just to his supervisor, Preston 

J. Waite (then serving as chief of the Statistical 

Methods Division), members of the Demographic 

Areas Committee, the authors of the DCP, and Bruce 

Johnson.28 Alexander saw his plan’s advantages 

over the DCP as making better use of the continuously updated address list, creating model-based 

24 Alexander’s memo outlining his proposal was addressed to 

only a handful of people, but one of Alexander’s contemporaries 

says it was the topic of many conversations around the Census 

Bureau. Cynthia Taueber, email message to author, July 31, 2011. 25 Charles Alexander to Preston Jay Waite, “Possible 

Modifications of DCP,” memorandum, October 31, 1988, pp. 3–4. 26 The American Community Survey currently creates multiyear 

estimates from data pulled from several annual samples. 27 Charles Alexander to Jay Waite, “Master Structure Address 

List,” memorandum, n.d. circa 1990–1991, p.1. While the memo 

included no date, Alexander said in 1999 that the fact that it was 

attached to a 1990 conference agenda made it likely from that year. 

Alexander’s use of the term “master structure address list” dates the 

memo before 1992 when that term had fallen out of use, replaced by 

the term “master address file.” Charles Alexander correspondence 

to Census Bureau historian David Pemberton, 1999. 28 Alexander, “Possible Modifications of the DCP,” p. 8.
U.S. Census Bureau 57

projections every year, as opposed to once a decade, 

potentially eliminating the need to rehire field staff in 

different parts of the country each year.29

Parts of Alexander’s idea withered away due to a lack 

of support, while others laid the foundation for what 

became the Continuous Measurement Alternative 

Design for the 2000 Census. In 1988, even Alexander 

expressed reservations with parts of his modification. 

In particular, he thought research on model-based 

projections might not have advanced enough to provide single-year projections for every small area by 

2001. In contrast, the following ideas, all departures 

from the DCP, formed the backbone of later proposals for a Continuous Measurement System:

• Spreading the sample nationwide.

• Using field staff to update the master address list 

in addition to automated updating from postal service address files, building permits, utility company 

hookups, etc.

• Using the master address list to help provide data 

used in weighting in creating some estimates, not 

just as a sample frame for survey samples.

• Having flexibility in methods over time in line with 

W. Edwards Deming’s theory that quality measurement leads to “continuous quality improvement” in 

the processes measured.30

When Census Bureau executives gathered at the 

December 1988 off-site meeting, rather than expressing support for additional research on one or more 

proposals, Acting Director Louis Kincannon declared 

that the executives had not settled on a single option. 

Instead, they determined possible directions for how 

the Census Bureau would approach future decennial 

censuses. He requested that the executive staff direct 

a select group of senior staff members and their 

branches examine and test the potential of several 

proposed decennial methodologies.31 Explaining his 

intentions, Kincannon wrote to senior Census Bureau 

staff: 

The Census Bureau will seriously consider and 

explore: (1) ways to simplify the basic decennial 

census and (2) ways to expand and make more timely 

29 Alexander, “Possible Modifications of DCP,” p. 3.

30 Charles Alexander, untitled handwritten notes on creating 

estimates from the Master Address List, n.d. 31 C. Louis Kincannon, deputy director, to the Executive Staff, 

“Follow Up to Hagerstown Meeting on Future of the Decennial 

Census,” memorandum, December 14, 1988.

subnational demographic data collected outside the 

basic decennial census.32

Kincannon intended that internal and external 

stakeholders would be asked to weigh in on each 

method to move long-form sample data collection to 

intercensal data collection.33

Census Bureau executives at the off-site directed 

Johnson and Herriot to collaborate on a brief statement outlining the different proposals in language 

clear enough for outside stakeholders to understand. 

In addition, Preston J. Waite was tasked with “formally” laying out the feasibility, timing, and budget 

requirements of the various intercensal surveys proposed.34 This assignment would figure prominently 

in all subsequent plans for intercensal data collection 

as it kept Chip Alexander working on moving data 

collection from the decennial census to intercensal 

projects.

During the process of gathering feedback about a 

possible shift to intercensal data collection within 

the Census Bureau, the 21st Century Staff uncovered a significant number of concerns. For example, 

regional directors echoed the Demographic Area 

Committee on the issue of budgets and questioned 

whether dropping the long form would lessen the 

workload of field staff. They argued that the difference in response rates from the 1980 long and short 

forms had been small, maintaining that “getting in 

the door,” not questionnaire length, was the bigger 

challenge for enumerators.35 Teams from the Census 

Bureau later realized that, for the continuous measurement concept to gain acceptance, it would have 

to address these potential impediments along with 

testing the feasibility of the proposals for providing 

timelier census data. The research and testing needed 

to accomplish this end would take the better part of 

the 1990s.36

32 C.L. Kincannon, deputy director to Distribution List, “Thank 

You,” memorandum, January 12, 1989. The memo went to all 

executive staff, all regional directors, the Year Zero Analysis Team, 

the Demographic Area Committee, and the 21st Century Staff. 33 C.L. Kincannon, deputy director, to the Executive Staff, 

“Follow Up to Hagerstown Meeting on Future of the Decennial 

Census,” memorandum, December 14, 1988, p. 1. 34 Kincannon, “Follow Up to Hagerstown Meeting on Future of 

the Decennial Census,” p. 2. 35 Bruce Johnson to Stanley D. Matchett, “Report on Meetings 

with Field Regional Directors,” memorandum, November 16, 1989, 

pp. 17–19. 36 Charles Alexander, editor, “Report of the Demographic Area 

Committee to Critique the Proposed DCP,” September 30, 1988.
58 U.S. Census Bureau

Early Feedback From Outside Stakeholders

While teams within the Census Bureau were finding both support and opposition within the agency 

to making major changes in census methods, the 

21st Century Staff encountered enough opposition 

among external stakeholders to slow implementation. 

Throughout 1989, the 21st Century branch discussed 

alternatives to the traditional census with data users 

throughout the United States and found that most 

data users saw no need for drastic change from the 

traditional collection methods.37 More importantly, 

staffers reported that users felt “threatened”—fearing 

that the difficulty in designing, funding, and implementing subnational intercensal surveys would result 

in data being lost.38

Towards the end of the summer of 1989, Bruce 

Johnson reported to Kincannon that, based on 

those reactions and the views of the Commerce 

Department, plans for reform should be slowed. 

Executives with the Commerce Department and the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rejected 

the Census Bureau’s request for funding to evaluate 

proposals. Johnson recognized that funds for planning the 2000 Census would be “more scarce as the 

1990 Census approaches.” In addition, an executive 

with the Commerce Department, while expressing 

interest in “profound changes” considered by the 

December off-site, said he wanted the Census Bureau 

to prioritize other activities within its budget and 

evaluate proposals with a small staff and a limited 

budget at least through 1991.39

In Johnson’s analysis, as Congress, members of 

President George H. W. Bush’s administration, data 

users, and the statistical community felt “no sense of 

an impending crisis,” the Commerce Department felt 

37 The 21st Century Staff presented their work on directions 

for the future of the Census Bureau at Joint Census Advisory 

Committee meetings several times 1988–1990. Staff members 

also presented that work and papers on more specific data 

collection and processing methods at conferences ranging from 

the Human Resources Conference, the American Society for Public 

Administrators, the Joint Statistical Meetings, and the Black Child 

Development Institute. 21st Century Decennial Planning Staff (TCS), 

“The RAPP Sheet: Research, Activities, Projects, and Plans,” 

U.S. Census Bureau, September 1990, p. 1. 38 U.S. Census Bureau, 21st Century Staff, “Deep Currents: The 

Case for Change,” U.S. Department of Commerce, February 1990, 

p. 1.39 Bruce Johnson, chief, 21st Century Staff to C. L. Kincannon, 

deputy director Census Bureau, “Mid-Course Correction to a 

Multiple Front Strategy,” memorandum, August 18, 1989, p. 1.

no sense of urgency.40 Coming out of the December 

1988 off-site the goal had been to run a research 

program with a focus on evaluating and choosing 

from among 2–3 possible major changes. Given the 

Commerce Department’s input, Johnson called for a 

“mid-course correction.” He recommended slowing 

down full implementation and called for research to 

evaluate the “profound changes” suggested by the 

Census Bureau and smaller means of altering traditional census methods such as using optical character 

recognition. Johnson stated that preliminary research 

on alternative methods should address elements 

common to several methods such as telephone interviewing. For the time being, the Census Bureau would 

treat all the census alternatives, large or small, “as 

co-equals.”41

Herriot and his two co-creators of the DCP proposal 

revised their paper, shepherded it through internal 

review, and presented their idea for the DCP to the 

American Statistical Association in August 1989. 

Unlike the earlier version, this paper included detailed 

expositions on the major changes put forward in the 

December off-site, blunting the force of its advocacy 

of moving forward with the DCP.42

In the ensuing months, the 21st Century Staff fought 

back against the slow approach, building a broad 

case for reform by highlighting problems and threats 

to the traditional means of conducting the decennial census. In February 1990, the 21st Century Staff 

issued “Deep Currents,” a report highlighting the 

obstacles the Census Bureau faced in running the 

decennial census with traditional methods.43 The 

report cited how local governments, mindful of revenue sharing and appropriations and minority groups 

seeking recognition, had increasingly challenged 

40 Johnson, “Mid-Course Correction,” p. 1. Officials at the 

Commerce Department also called inadequate the Census Bureau’s 

justification for its budget requests for the 21st Century Staff’s and 

other year 2000 decennial out-year budget increases. They also 

asked for clarification of the different roles of the 21st Century Staff 

and the Decennial Census Directorate. Refer to “FY 1990 Passback 

Guidance Received from the Department of Commerce,” Appendix 

A of memo from C. L. Kincannon to Kay Bulow, assistant secretary 

for Administration of the Commerce Department, “Response to FY 

1990 Budget Passback Guidance Information Request,” January 13, 

1989. 41 Johnson, “Mid-Course Correction,” p. 1.

42 Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, and William F. McCarthy, 

“The Decade Census Program–A New Approach for Meeting 

the Nation’s Needs for Sub-National Data,” Proceedings of the 

American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, 1989. It 

would appear from these changes that Herriot and his co-authors 

were pressured to weaken their proposal when executives at the 

off-site told them to include alternatives to their plan when writing it 

up for broader circulation. 43 While the layout and wording of “Deep Currents” suggest 

it was intended for a wider audience, it is not clear how widely it 

circulated.
U.S. Census Bureau 59

numbers they deemed low or inaccurate. It also 

warned that even if the 1990 Census were a success, 

“what works in 1990 may not work in the year 2000 

or into the 21st century” because of major socioeconomic changes. Future possible obstacles included:

• Growing demand for data on small areas and small 

population groups. 

• Difficulty recruiting enumerators.

• Falling response rates.

• Budget cuts despite rising costs.44

The 21st Century Staff concluded its argument 

about the societal and economic pressures facing 

the decennial census by challenging detractors to 

counter argue which trends would mitigate those 

pressures.

Reaction to the 1990 Census

Census Bureau supporters of alternative designs for 

census taking gained ground in the wake of what 

was viewed as a less than satisfactory 1990 Census. 

When skeptics within the Census Bureau, users, and 

external decision-makers saw the statistical and fiscal 

results of this census, some became more receptive 

to reorganizing the decennial. In this climate, defenders of the traditional methods and the data they 

delivered faced a threat of lost funding.

At her long-delayed 1990 confirmation hearing, 

Census Bureau Director Barbara Everett Bryant, 

signaled that upper management at the Census 

Bureau believed a major overhaul of census enumeration procedures was needed. Bryant cited the 

facts that the American public was not as responsive to mail surveys as it had been in 1970 or 1980 

and that declines in response rates had boosted 

the amount of recanvassing of nonrespondents in 

1990 by 25 percent, more than the Census Bureau 

had expected. This situation had forced the Census 

Bureau to seek additional emergency appropriations 

approved by Congress in order to complete the 1990 

Census. While the facts Bryant cited were sobering, 

her conclusion had an even larger impact. Her comments gave de facto marching orders to all Census 

Bureau staff, including those reluctant or skeptical 

of plans offered so far. Bryant said in that hearing 

that she would make major reform of the census her 

44 Deep Currents, February 1990, p. 1.

priority during her tenure and called for "fundamental 

rethinking."45

Bryant found at least one Congressional figure in harmony with that view. Thomas C. Sawyer, a representative from Ohio who chaired the Congressional committee overseeing censuses, said he "envision[ed] a 

fundamentally different census in the year 2000.” He 

wanted the decennial to “focus the data collection on 

the constitutional purpose of the census” and added: 

“Rolling samples throughout the decade can be used 

to meet a wide range of the information needs for the 

purposes of planning, developing, and administering 

programs.”46

With those words, Sawyer appeared to invoke Kish 

and Herriot’s ideas. While Sawyer did not mention their research, Census Bureau staff and Daniel 

Melnick from the Congressional Research Service 

likely briefed Sawyer and the staff of the census oversight committee on such ideas before that July 1990 

hearing.47

When mentioning rolling samples in July 1990, 

Sawyer did not yet bring up a theme from Kish on 

which Sawyer would later dwell—the imprecision of 

data from the 10-year headcount. In a 1981 report 

to Congress, Kish had made Congress aware that 

many programs used census data that was up to 14 

years old. Kish argued that bias due to the obsolescence of decennial census data was “perhaps greater 

even than the famous biases due to undercoverage.”48 Melnick had repeated that argument to the 

Congressional oversight committee in 1987 saying, 

“Some experts believe that the changes which occur 

after the census are larger than the differences 

between the census results and the real situation on 

census day.”49

45 Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Census Overview 

and Nomination of Barbara Bryant, 101st Cong., 2d session, July 13, 

1990, pp. 36–38.Testimony of Dr. Barbara Everett Bryant, director, 

Census Bureau before the Senate as quoted in the GAO, “1990 

results show need for fundamental reform,” GAO/GGD-92-94, 

Washington, DC, June 9, 1992 p. 19. 46 Testimony of Hon. Tom Sawyer, Senate Committee on 

Governmental Affairs, “Census overview and nomination of Barbara 

Bryant,” July 13, 1990, p. 14. 47 TerriAnn Lowenthal, former chief of staff of Representative 

Thomas C. Sawyer, interview by author, May 8, 2012. Melnick had 

worked with Kish to publish Kish’s 1981 report on using rolling 

samples to gather long-form data. Daniel Melnick, “Improving 

Census Accuracy,” a report/prepared by the Congressional 

Research Service for the Subcommittee on Census and Population 

of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of 

Representatives, Washington, DC, GPO, 1987. 48 Leslie Kish, “Using Cumulated Rolling Samples to Integrate 

Census and Survey Operations of the Census Bureau: an Analysis, 

Review, and Response,” printed for the use of the Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service,” GPO, Washington, DC, 1981. 49 Melnick, “Improving Census Accuracy,” 1987, p. 82.
60 U.S. Census Bureau

The Commerce Department displayed support for 

major changes in census taking as the first inklings 

that the undercount had widened became public 

in 1990. In August 1990, when the Census Bureau 

released preliminary population and housing figures, dozens of municipalities spoke out, similar to 

the response to the crisis Bruce Johnson predicted 

as necessary to nudge outside support for change. 

Local officials wrote to the Census Bureau, the 

Commerce Department, and Congressional committees overseeing census operations venting their disagreement with the counts. In many communities, the 

preliminary counts were lower than Census Bureau 

estimates published for 1989. Local government 

officials reacted from the positions “Deep Currents” 

had ascribed to them, a fact which undoubtedly bolstered its other conclusions. For example, the mayor 

of Shelby County, Tennessee, wrote to Congress that 

his county’s preliminary undercount would lessen its 

share of Tennessee state tax revenues by $3.2 million 

a year.50

Census Advisory Committee Member Eugene 

Ericksen warned Congress in September 1990 that 

discrepancies in housing figures, particularly in census blocks with more than a 50-percent minority population, indicated that a differential undercount had 

taken place.51 One census critic decried how response 

rates had fallen from the 1980 Census despite the 

Census Bureau’s expenditure of $2.6 billion on the 

1990 Census, a 65-percent increase in constant 1990 

dollars over what was spent on the 1980 Census.52

Some of the problems predicted in “Deep Currents” 

had come to pass, and government agencies answerable for the 1990 Census responded quickly. In 

November 1990, scarcely 3 months after the initial 

predictions of an undercount and concurrent criticisms of costs, the Census Bureau and the Commerce 

Department formed the Task Force for Planning the 

Year 2000 Census and directed it to engage in an 

50 Mayor William M. Morris Jr. to Representative Jim Sasser, 

October 8, 1990, as published in House Subcommittee on Census 

and Population of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service 

and the Senate Subcommittee on Government Information and 

Regulation of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, “Review 

Progress of Coverage Evaluation and Adjustment Procedures of the 

1990 Census,” 102d Cong., 1st sess., March 19, 1991, pp. 22–23. 51 House Subcommittee on Census and Population of the 

Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, 1990 Census Coverage 

Evaluation Operations, 102d Cong., 1st sess., September 11, 1990. 52 GAO, June 9, 1992, p. 24f. The authors of the GAO report 

used the Census Bureau’s figures for the full-cycle cost of the 

1980 Census from initial planning through final publications and 

evaluation and the Census Bureau’s 1992 projections for the total 

full-cycle cost of the 1990 Census. The report did not state how it 

calculated inflation for 1980 dollars.

open process of evaluating different census designs.53

The task force was to present its findings to both 

agencies and provide advice on the best features and 

plans to adopt.54

In another development from November 1990, the 

Commerce Department and the Census Bureau 

formed the Year 2000 Research and Development 

Staff (2KS) with the goal of making operational 

plans out of the 21st Century Staff’s broad outlines 

for reform. Critically, it also received funds from the 

Commerce Department to begin planning how best 

to conduct the 2000 Census. Like the work of the 

21st Century Planning Staff, these steps were unprecedentedly early. For example, funding for planning for 

the 1990 Census had begun only in 1984. In creating 

the Task Force and the 2KS, the Census Bureau and 

authorizing officials in the Commerce Department 

acknowledged that the Census Bureau would have to 

have time to propose, evaluate, and win support for 

major projects to change census methods.55

Whether the Census Bureau would have sufficient 

funds to start the necessary research remained in 

doubt until the General Accounting Office (GAO), 

the OMB, and the Congressional oversight committee announced their support in mid-1991. Earlier that 

year, the Senate proposed cutting $30 million from 

the Census Bureau’s budget, a move Bryant told 

Congress would hamper not only ongoing research 

53 The process would include representation on the Task 

Force from other government statistical agencies, state and 

local governments, minority groups, and members of statistical 

professional associations. 54 The full title of the body was the Task Force for Planning the 

Year Census 2000 and Census-Related Activities for 2000–2009. 

Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel of the 

House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, Review Major 

Alternatives for the Census in the Year 2000, 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 

August 1, 1991, p. 15. 55 Susan Miskura, “Research and Development for the Census 

2000,” paper presented at the Census Advisory Committee of the 

American Statistical Association, Census Advisory Committee on 

Population Statistics, and the Census Advisory Committee of the 

American Marketing Association at the Joint Advisory Committee 

Meeting, April 25–26, 1991, in Alexandria VA, p. 1. An official from 

the GAO expressed similar belief to Congress that the Census 

Bureau could not wait that late into the decade to plan for the 

2000 Census. By 1984, he said, “It was already too late to design, 

test, and implement fundamental changes in census methodology.” 

Statement by L. Nye Stevens, director of the Government Business 

Operations Issues of the General Government Division of the 

General Accounting Office, “Census Reform Needs Attention Now, 

“the GAO, T-GGD-91-113, March 12, 1991. Harry Scarr, then serving 

as the deputy assistant secretary for Statistical Affairs at the 

Commerce Department, said, “Beginning now will allow for at least 

the possibility of major changes in the way the census is conducted; 

beginning later would not.” Harry Scarr, “Opening Remarks at the 

First Meeting of the Task Force Advisory Committee,” Washington 

DC, December 9, 1991, as quoted in the Task Force for Designing the 

Year Census 2000, Reinventing the Decennial Census: Global Report 

of the Task Force for Planning the Year Census 2000, April 1995, 

p. 5.
U.S. Census Bureau 61

for the next census, but also the release of long-form 

data products from the 1990 Census.56 The OMB 

demonstrated its support for undertaking the necessary research to evaluate major changes by doubling 

what had been sent previously to the Census Bureau 

for its research budget request.57 The GAO argued 

that it would be counterproductive of those seeking 

to cut the agency’s budget to punish it for cost overruns, undercoverage, and differential undercounting 

of minorities. The official from the GAO testified 

before the Congressional oversight committee that 

the Census Bureau required increased funding to 

investigate and innovate ways to improve coverage, 

increase automation, and evaluate how sampling 

could cut census costs.58

Gathering Ideas for Design Alternatives

Empowered by the support of the Census Bureau’s 

tradition of innovation and expanded data delivery 

and mindful of the threat to the Census Bureau’s 

operations if it did not make the case for change, the 

2KS began gathering ideas from stakeholders and 

Census Bureau staffers. Between December 1990 and 

December 1991, the 2KS held over 20 focus groups 

to identify various methods to conduct the 2000 

Census. They encountered support among various 

groups for features that would form the basic components of continuous measurement and also for 

competing design alternatives.59 Roger Herriot and 

other supporters of using rolling samples to collect 

intercensal data advocated successfully for a rolling sample census to be included among the design 

alternatives60 (Figure 4). Susan Miskura, the head 

of the Year 2000 Research and Development Staff 

stated that one design being formulated included 

rolling sample surveys and administrative records.61

56 Rep. Tom Sawyer and Barbara Everett Bryant in House 

Committee, Review major alternatives for the census in the year 

2000, August 1, 1991, p. 26. 57 Representative Tom Sawyer to Barbara Everett Bryant in 

House Subcommittee on Census and Population of the Committee 

of Post Office and Civil Service, “Review the Census Bureau’s 

Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 1992,” 102d Cong., 1st sess., March 

12, 1991. 58 Stevens, “Census Reform Needs Attention Now,” 

pp. 53–66. 59 Susan Miskura, “Forward From 1990: Designing the Census 

2000,” paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, August 

1992 Boston, MA as excerpted in Appendix 1 of Robert D. Tortora, 

associate director SDMS and Susan M. Miskura, Year 2000 R&D 

Staff, “Research Plans for the Census 2000,” paper presented to 

the Census Advisory Committee of the AIAN, API and Black and 

Hispanic Populations, November 5–6, 1992, Appendix 1, p. 1 and 

Tortora and Miskura, p. 1. 60 Paula Schneider’s oral history interview by Dave Pemberton of 

the History Staff of the Census Bureau, March 22, 2001, p. 40. 61 Census Bureau, “Minutes and Recommendations of the Census 

Advisory Committee,” April 24–25, 1991, p. 24.

Voices outside the Census Bureau supported some 

elements of the proposals to simplify the decennial 

and provide intercensal data. A “bare bones census” 

is what one local official suggested to Congress for 

approval in June 1991. Citing the differential undercount numbers released just a few days before, Mayor 

Thomas Bradley of Los Angeles made a very specific 

recommendation that any future census should have 

a form with “questions limited to those of constitutional significance—those on race, sex, and age.” 

Bradley said, “The Census Bureau could acquire other 

information via sampling.”62 Members of the Census 

Advisory Committee asked if a mid-decade census 

and rolling sample surveys figured into the agency’s 

plans, thus signaling their willingness to consider 

those data collection methods. Frequent delays in 

mailings and disputes over address counts encouraged New York City Mayor David Dinkins’s office 

to recommend maintaining the Census Bureau’s 

database of geocoded corporate boundaries and 

addresses throughout the decade. That office argued 

that if the Census Bureau continuously updated 

its database, called the Topologically Integrated 

Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) 

system, it would be more accurate at the start of the 

next decennial census. Mayor Dinkin’s office cited 

how the undercount, costs, and delays had mounted 

when 500,000 census questionnaires destined for 

Brooklyn were held up as undeliverable.63 A continuously updated Master Address File (MAF) and geocoded address database would later figure prominently in plans for a Continuous Measurement Survey, 

and data users lent their support to this important 

tool from 1990 onwards.

Data collection methods other than rolling samples received support as well. In March 1991, Census 

Bureau Director Barbara Bryant prioritized shortening questionnaires and using information from 

administrative records to take the place of the census 

62 Los Angeles Mayor Thomas Bradley in House Subcommittee 

on Census and Population of the Committee of Post Office and 

Civil Service, Review the role of local governments in the 1990 

Census and to hear recommendations for the Census 2000, 102d 

Cong., 1st sess., June 15, 1991, p. 112. Bradley also recommended 

having adequate bilingual information including questionnaires and 

sufficient numbers of bilingual telephone operators. 63 The TIGER database included the geographic coordinates of 

addresses, major geographic features such as rivers and highways, 

and the corporate boundaries of states, counties, cities, and other 

incorporated places. NYC Office of the Mayor, “1990 Census 

Project: Mayor’s Response to Senator Glenn’s and Kohl’s Request 

for Information on the Role and Operations of the 1990 Census,” 

July 11, 1990, included with Mayor’s Dinkins’ testimony to the Joint 

Committee hearings, House Committee, “Review the Role of Local 

Governments in the 1990 Census,” p. 22.
62 U.S. Census Bureau

or certain data collected.64 The GAO supported the 

Census Bureau’s February 1991 statement before 

Congress announcing that it might want to use sampling for nonresponse follow-up instead of attempting to contact or return to every nonresponding 

household as many as six times.65 When Director 

Bryant outlined design alternatives in April 1991 to 

the Census Advisory Committee, she spent most of 

her time talking about every design alternative other 

than rolling sample surveys. The alternatives she 

mentioned included: using administrative records for 

content, reducing the census to cover only items for 

apportionment and redistricting, and possibly using 

sampling to replace enumeration or using sampling to 

replace some of the content.66

Consideration of cost looked likely to favor these 

other design alternatives over the rolling sample 

census described in Herriot’s Decade Census Program 

(DCP). 21st Century Decennial Planning Staff weighed 

the costs of the census against the value of the statistics to be collected according to the Herriot plan.67

Miskura told the joint advisory committees that the 

Census Bureau would “consider the cost effectiveness 

of technical options as well as effects on quality.”68

During the Congressional hearings in August 1991 on 

“Major Alternatives to the Census,” Director Bryant 

took pains to inform Congress that all the design 

alternatives that the Census Bureau was proposing 

would be evaluated based on cost and balanced with 

the agency’s ability to improve the quality of the census.69 Among the available options, two seemed the 

best to be able to perform within these constraints: 

(1) replacing the entire enumeration with a one-time 

64 Bryant in House Subcommittee on Census and Population of 

the Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, “Review the Census 

Bureau’s Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 1992,” 102d Cong., 1st 

sess., March 12, 1991. 65 L. Nye Stevens, “Census Reform Needs Attention Now, 

“General Accounting Office, T-GGD-91-13, March 12, 1991, p. 6. 66 Susan Miskura, “Research and Development for the Census 

2000,” paper presented at the Census Advisory Committee of the 

American Statistical Association, Census Advisory Committee on 

Population Statistics, and the Census Advisory Committee of the 

American Marketing Association at the Joint Advisory Committee 

Meeting, April 25–26, 1991 in Alexandria, VA, pp. 1–6. 67 Census Bureau discussions of cost-benefit analysis 

simultaneously recognized the difficulty of putting a value 

on statistical data they produced and realized that OMB, the 

Department of Commerce, and the GAO would require the Census 

Bureau to provide more concrete information on the “use of 

statistics and its impact on the economy.” Jay Keller and Sandra 

Rowland, “21st Century Census Planning: A Cost-Benefit Approach,” 

21st Century Census Decennial Planning Staff, presented at the 

Census Advisory Committee on Population Statistics, April 18, 1990. 68 Miskura, “Research and Development for the Census 2000,” 

April 25–26, 1991, p. 2. 69 House Subcommittee on Census and Population of the 

Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, “Review of Major 

Alternatives for the Census in the Year 2000,” 102nd Cong., 1st sess., 

August 1, 1991, p. 29.

sample survey or (2) substituting information already 

collected by other federal agencies for the headcount 

and census content. Enacting these changes would 

possibly require legal changes to Title 13 and perhaps 

even a constitutional amendment but would likely 

reduce the costs of the decennial dramatically. Bryant, 

however, did not provide cost estimates to support 

this assertion.70 In contrast, Herriot, Bateman, and 

McCarthy estimated that the DCP would cost more 

than the long form.71

A departure from traditional census methods worked 

in favor of conducting a rolling sample census as 

officials with power over Census Bureau operations 

demanded a break with previous census methods. 

The chair of the Congressional committee overseeing 

censuses stated succinctly that he wanted to see 

significant changes. “I am convinced,” Representative 

Sawyer said, “that the census needs fundamental 

reform.” He continued, “I am certain that the Census 

[Bureau] simply will not be able to take a census in 

the year 2000 like the one that was taken in 1990.”72

Viewing the preliminary numbers on the differential 

undercount coming out of the post-enumeration 

survey (PES), the GAO said that the traditional 

census methodology had reached the limits of its 

effectiveness.73

Congress then broadly supported the effort to push 

forward alternative census designs that made fundamental changes. More importantly for the continuous 

measurement proposal, Congress legislated that 

research regarding rolling samples should continue. 

In August 1991, Director Bryant provided Congress 

with design alternatives including a rolling sample 

survey census, an administrative records census, and 

“an improved 1990-style design with incremental 

technical changes” census.74

At the same August 1991 Congressional hearing 

at which Director Bryant testified, Daniel Melnick, 

then working as a senior advisor at the National 

Science Foundation, detailed implications of implementing a rolling sample survey in the context of 

the decennial census. Melnick described how that 

same Congressional oversight committee had 

70 House Committee, “Review of Major Alternatives for the 

Census in the Year 2000,” pp. 11, 20, and 42. 71 Roger Herriot, David V. Bateman, and William F. McCarthy, “The 

Decade Census Program–A New Approach for Meeting the Nation’s 

Needs for Sub-National Data,” September 27, 1988, pp. 19–20. 72 House Committee, “Review the Role of Local Governments in 

the 1990 Census,” p. 1. 73 Stevens, March 12, 1991, p. 2.

74 Bryant in House Committee, “Review of Major Alternatives for 

the Census in the Year 2000,” August 1, 1991.
U.S. Census Bureau 63

commissioned Leslie Kish to analyze rolling sample 

surveys as a means of providing census data throughout the decade and reducing the size and complexity 

of decennial census operations.75 In “The Census of 

2000 A.D. and Beyond,”—a document from Melnick’s 

subcommittee hearing that Charles Alexander later 

would credit as vital in winning support for the 

Census Bureau’s research on continuous measurement—Melnick said “We use census data as if they are 

still current, but we know they are not.” Melnick even 

addressed sampling error when he said, “changes 

since the last census are often, many times, the 

reported errors in the figures.”76

The day following Bryant’s presentation, 

Representative Sawyer introduced the Decennial 

Census Improvement Act, which put into law 

the requirement that the Census Bureau give full 

consideration to rolling samples as an alternative 

to the traditional enumerations methodologies. 

The act ordered the Census Bureau to contract 

with the National Research Council’s Committee on 

National Statistics (CNSTAT) to form a panel to study 

“alternative methods for collecting the data needed 

for a basic population count.” The bill mandated that 

the panel evaluate methods, “such as any involving 

administrative records, information from subnational 

or other surveys, and cumulative or rolling datacollection techniques” for gathering census material. 

The Decennial Census Improvement Act became law 

in late October 1991.77

Proposing Design Alternatives

From fall 1991 to summer 1992, Census Bureau 

experts analyzed and fleshed out what they considered a “complete inventory of different ways . . . 

that the major features of a decennial census could 

be done.” They drew ideas from consultations with 

stakeholders that had continued since December 

1990. In January 1992, the Technical Committee of 

the Year 2000 Task Force identified an initial set of 

15 design alternatives and evaluation criteria. Internal 

meetings with stakeholders produced potential 

designs between January and May 1992. The task 

force then eliminated and redesigned several features 

75 Daniel Melnick, “The Census of 2000 A.D. and Beyond,” in 

House Subcommittee, Review Major Alternatives for the Census, 

August 1, 1991, p. 73. 76 Daniel Melnick, “The Census of 2000 A.D. and Beyond,” in 

House Subcommittee, Review Major Alternatives for the Census, 

August 1, 1991, p. 63. 77 H.R.3280, Decennial Census Improvement Act of 1991 at 

<www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/3280>,

accessed December 15, 2023.

into a new design alternative. The task force also 

brought up technical and policy issues that needed 

to be resolved to determine if a design should continue to be considered for the 2000 Census. During 

the summer and fall of 1992, the chief of the Year 

2000 Research and Development staff presented a 

list and description of 14 design alternatives at the 

Joint Statistical Meetings and at the Census Advisory 

Committees Meetings.78 (Text Box 1.)

The 14 alternative designs presented by the 2KS 

included one (by then) named the “Continuous 

Measurement Survey,” along with alternatives that 

might supersede it. The design proposal for the 

Continuous Measurement Survey called for shortening the questionnaire for the enumeration of 100 

percent of households and replacing the long-form 

sample with data collected via a sample continuously 

collected over a longer time frame. Another of the 14 

alternatives merely simplified the decennial questionnaire and shortened it considerably. The more radical 

alternatives would replace the decennial census with 

either estimates from administrative records or a onetime sample survey. Several of the alternative designs 

simply modified the procedures that had been carried 

out in 1990.79

At this stage the designs were not set out in great 

detail. For example, the Continuous Measurement 

Survey proposal did not elaborate in depth about the 

“ongoing data collection/production system throughout the decade.” The research and development 

program for 1992–1995 would have to determine what 

design elements would best balance “data needs and 

costs.” Even the basic alternatives envisioned that the 

new census would draw upon demographic surveys, 

administrative records, and the Census Bureau’s estimates programs to produce data.80

Continuous measurement appeared attractive 

because it promised to reduce operational spikes and 

produce more frequent data. The head of the 2KS 

identified a potential downside in that the activities 

involved in continuous measurement might increase 

78 Susan Miskura, August 1992, pp. 4, 6, and 9–10. 

79 Miskura, August 1992, Appendix 1 pp. 9–10.

80 Miskura, August 1992, Appendix 1 pp. 9–10. 
64 U.S. Census Bureau

Text Box 1.

The 14 Design Alternatives Recommended for the 2000 Census

• Multiple-response options. Added response options such as telephone, computer, fax, and interactive cable television to the mailout/mailback method that required respondents to complete and 

return paper questionnaires.

• High-tech options. Combined multiple-response options with the use of administrative records and 

statistical estimation.

• Expanded content. Would collect additional data by using a variety of long-form questionnaires 

(matrix sampling).

• Truncated/more estimation. Limited nonresponse follow-up (NRFU) among nonrespondents to the 

initial census questionnaire, allowing for substantial cost savings and requiring sampling and estimation to complete NRFU.

• Sample census. Would expand the use of statistical sampling to the entire mail-out universe; all 

census counts would be sample-based estimates.

• Target enumeration barriers. Census-taking methods primarily designed for hard-to-reach 

populations.

• Administrative records only. The census would be taken using administrative records only. No direct 

enumeration would take place and no census questionnaire would be used.

• Administrative records with enumeration support. The census would be based on the data in 

administrative records, supplemented by enumeration and follow-up with respondents for whom few 

or no other records existed.

• Voting rights data only. Similar to the methods using administrative records but involving only 

the collection of data required by the Voting Rights Act (i.e., number of persons by age, race, and 

Hispanic origin at the block level).

• Reapportionment and redistricting counts only. Would collect only reapportionment and redistricting data—a basic headcount for each block. This design would collect less data than previous 

censuses but would include statistical ‘‘adjustment’’ for over and undercounts.

• Redistricting counts only/no estimation. This basic headcount would collect and publish blocklevel population counts to meet redistricting requirements; it would incorporate neither coverageimprovement operations nor statistical ‘‘adjustment’’ of the counts.

• Reapportionment only/no estimation. This ‘‘bare bones’’ headcount would tabulate and publish 

population counts for states only and would not include procedures for coverage-improvement or 

statistical adjustment.

• Two-stage. One-hundred percent (short-form) data collected on Census Day. Sample data would be 

collected later in the year.

• Continuous measurement. Ongoing data collection throughout the decade. Minimal data would be 

collected in the year 2000.

Source: Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, History, Vol. I, December 2009, p. 39.
U.S. Census Bureau 65

the costs.81 However, the belief that since continuous measurement design minimized content in the 

census year it might increase response rates and 

thereby reduce costs helped to lessen those concerns. In addition, census planners hypothesized 

that field operations enjoying higher response rates 

might reduce the undercount by shifting greater 

resources to hard-to-enumerate populations.82 As the 

list of design alternatives coalesced, Census Bureau 

planners showed that the system would borrow 

from data collection methods used in other countries, most notably Germany and Sweden. Robert 

Groves, the associate director with authority over all 

Census Bureau’s statistical design and methodology, 

informed the Census Advisory Committee that these 

two countries gathered census information using 

large demographic surveys of 1–2 percent of their 

populations.83

Early Development of the Design Alternative in the 

Demographic Statistical Methods Division

Since both Roger Herriot and Bruce Johnson were 

no longer at the Census Bureau by 1991, the 2KS 

search for the mathematical statistician to develop 

the Continuous Measurement Design Alternative 

Recommendation quickly focused in on Charles 

Alexander as the logical choice for the position. 

Alexander’s previous work critiquing the DCP helped 

cement his selection and he accepted the assignment.84 Even before he began work on the design 

recommendation, Alexander and his supervisor, 

Preston J. Waite, expressed interest in the project. 

They were convinced that an updated MAF would 

help in redesigning and carrying out the other surveys for which their division provided statistical and 

81 Miskura, August 1992, Appendix 1, pp. 9–10. Miskura’s words 

were later echoed in Congress. Congressional representatives in 

1993 realized that continuous measurement might raise the Census 

Bureau’s costs to collect data but encouraged the agency to 

demonstrate what the tradeoff was for more timely data and how 

a Continuous Measurement System might provide a lot more data 

overall. Congressman Tom Sawyer, opening statement, “Hearing 

to Review the Status of Planning for the Census 2000,” October 7, 

1993, p. 2. 82 Miskura, August 1992, Appendix 1, p. 9 and Miskura, 1991, p. 4.

83 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee of April 24, 1992, p. 14. 84Larry McGinn to David Pemberton, personal correspondence, 

January 19, 2011.

methodological support.85 In fact, Alexander had 

worked on over 20 surveys at the Census Bureau 

and for other statistical agencies and had overseen 

the first widescale tests of the Random Digit Dialing 

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing System. 

That experience would be crucial to his development 

of ideas on continuous measurement and his ability 

to speak with colleagues from other federal statistical agencies. Alexander’s personality played a role 

as well. He was well-respected and able to establish 

a rapport with the stakeholders. He willingly listened 

to the data users and considered their needs in his 

recommendations.86

Alexander possessed communication skills that could 

draw audiences’ attention. When Alexander served 

as a discussant at the 1992 Joint Statistical Meetings 

he displayed this trait by opening with an unusual 

line for the professional conference—“My father used 

to tell me stories about Morris Hansen when I was a 

kid.” Alexander relayed how his father, a coworker 

of Hansen’s, had used Hansen’s example to teach his 

son to save his allowance and not spend it on candy. 

Hansen, the elder Alexander said, had money for his 

other projects because he saved the Census Bureau 

money by incorporating sampling in the decennial 

census.87

Alexander quickly and fundamentally reshaped 

Census Bureau plans for providing intercensal data. 

He and others had foreseen likely problems that 

would arise with Herriot’s proposal to sample one 

set of states each year as a result of states jockeying for inclusion or of decision-makers wanting 

to evaluate comparable data among metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs). To counter these potential 

issues, Alexander suggested substituting nationwide 

85 “Year Zero Analysis Team Report,” September 23, 1988, 

p. 13. Paul Schneider Oral History Transcript, p. 40, and Jay Waite 

as quoted in Dave Pemberton, “Notes From the Continuous 

Measurement Discussion/ACS Meeting,” June 29, 1999, p. 1. 

Alexander’s involvement with the committee did not signal that he 

was against the DCP and later recanted. The committee’s write-up 

was not a whole-hearted dismissal of Herriot’s proposal. Instead 

it functioned in the role of what quality management at that time 

would have called a “murder board.” A panel of experts gathered 

to challenge every aspect of a proposal to allow its authors to (a) 

anticipate criticisms from outside the organization and (b) make it 

stronger before its public debut. 86 Alan M. Zaslavsky, “Chip Alexander and the American 

Community Survey,” discussant paper, Proceedings of the 2003 

Joint Statistical Meetings Section on Survey Research Methods, 

p. 4714. Cynthia Taeuber, email message to author, August, 2011. 

“Chip Alexander: A Prince of a Human Being,” 2003. 87 At the start of the 1960s, Morris Hansen served as assistant 

director for Research and Development of the Census Bureau when 

Charles H. Alexander, Sr. served as chief of the Census Bureau’s 

Budget and Management Division. Charles H. Alexander, Jr., 

“Discussion,” Proceedings of the 2003 Joint Statistical Meetings 

Section on Survey Research Methods, p. 49.
66 U.S. Census Bureau

sampling to deliver estimates for areas nationwide.88

Furthermore, he proposed shifting the primary means 

of collecting data from the DCP’s primary reliance 

on telephone interviews to mailed responses.89 As 

telephone interviews cost more on a per-interview 

basis than having households answer questionnaires 

mailed to them, Alexander’s change aligned with the 

marching orders given by Congressional critics to rein 

in costs.

Within the Census Bureau, Alexander also broadly 

circulated his idea of using model-based estimates 

for small areas. In 1988, he preferred creating such 

estimates annually for small areas to the multiyear 

averages advocated by Roger Herriot and Leslie 

Kish.90 Alexander included models among the methods for continuous measurement after learning that 

Bruce Johnson told Acting Director Kincannon about 

essential research on estimation techniques used by 

private vendors and other agencies. Johnson, in an 

August 1989 memo to Kincannon, which Alexander 

also received, argued that estimation from smaller 

surveys and administrative records had great 

potential to reduce costs and respondent burden.91

Alexander also revived this idea because it received 

outside validation when statistician Fritz Scheuren, 

of the Internal Revenue Service, presented a similar 

plan to the Council of Professional Associations on 

Federal Statistics (COPAFS) conference in 1990.92

88 Johnson, Herriot, and Rowland, August 1989, p. 11, and 

Charles H. Alexander, “An Initial Review of Possible Continuous 

Measurement Designs (Internal Census Bureau Report CM-2),” 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, December 1992, pp. 9 and 19. 89 Alexander, December 1992, pp. 12 and 13. Charles H. Alexander, 

“Overview of Continuous Measurement for the Technical Committee 

(Internal Census Bureau Report CM-4), Washington, DC, 

U.S. Census Bureau, February 1993, p. 4, and Charles H. Alexander, 

“A Prototype Design For Continuous Measurement” (Internal Census 

Bureau Reports CM-7), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, n.d. 

but by May 1993, p. 4. 90 Kish, “Using Cumulated Rolling Samples to Integrate Census 

and Survey Operations,” 1981 and Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, 

“The Decade Census Program,” 1988. 91 Bruce Johnson, “Mid-Course Correction to a Multiple Front 

Strategy,” p. 3. As Johnson was writing his memo, John Beresford 

of the 21st Century Staff was evaluating the accuracy of census 

tract estimates made by Donnelley Marketing with 1980 Census 

data. A separate paper by Beresford provided a primer on how 

to produce estimates by age, sex, per capita income, race and 

Hispanic heritage. John C. Beresford, “Comparison of Bureau and 

Donnelley Small Area Estimates,” Memorandum, November 7, 1989 

and John C. Beresford, “Primer on Bureau’s Population Estimates: 

Subjects, Geography, Frequency, Currency, and Methods,” 

Memorandum, November 30, 1989 as abstracted in 21st Century 

Decennial Planning Staff (TCS), “The RAPP Sheet: Research, 

Activities, Projects, and Plans,” U.S. Census Bureau, September 

1990, p. III-2. 92 Fritz Scheuren, “Paradigm Shifts: Administrative Records And 

Census-Taking,” paper presented May 22–23, 1990 at a seminar 

hosted by the Council of Professional Associations on Federal 

Statistics (COPAFS), Statistical Policy Working Paper 20 - Seminar 

on Quality of Federal Data, Office of Management and Budget, 

March 1991.

However, when Waite tapped him to work with the 

2KS to develop the Continuous Measurement Survey, 

Alexander proposed determining if the use of such 

modeling would be preferable to multiyear cumulated 

estimates or running a large rolling sample census 

on a yearly basis.93 Unlike the proposal for modeling 

described in Alexander’s 1988 memo, this time his 

idea received wide circulation even if it was only one 

of several possible methods for running continuous 

measurement.

In addition to a rolling sample of different states, 

Alexander worked through and rejected several other 

initial proposals on continuous measurement. Some 

of the proposals outlined different ways to collect 

data such as: 

• Relying on model-based estimates provided 

annually for small areas derived from a new survey, combined with administrative records and 

changes in the address list.94

• Initiating a mid-decade sample census, measuring 

the entire nation at one point in time during one 

of the middle years of the decade. 

• Replacing the decennial census with a set of 

intercensal estimates collected by one of the 

methods listed above or from a nationwide 

sample survey with 5-year cumulations for small 

areas. 95

Although the 21st Century Staff’s 1988 survey of 

senior staff at the Census Bureau had found strong 

support for the mid-decade sample census alternative, by late 1992, Alexander would merely mention 

it as a proposal that had been ruled out. He pointed 

out that previous mid-decade census proposals had 

not made a convincing case that they reduced the 

cost or improved operations of the decennial.96 By 

the time Alexander was working on the Continuous 

Measurement Design Alternative Recommendation 

(DAR), Kish had widely circulated his observation that 

10-percent sample censuses in two other countries 

had cost half as much as a full decennial census.97

93 Alexander, December 1992, pp. 7, 16.

94Alexander did not elaborate how changes in the address list 

would provide content but previous documents, several of which are 

mentioned in this chapter, had suggested them for characteristics of 

housing in areas and as a barometer of population trends. 95 Alexander, December 1992, p. 1. Alexander quickly rejected 

outright replacement of the decennial census with a rolling sample 

census because the decennial census was required under the 

U.S. Constitution. 96 Alexander, December 1992, p. 17.

97 Leslie Kish, “Rolling Samples and Censuses,” Survey 

methodology, v. 16, no. 1, Statistics Canada, June 1990, p. 65.
U.S. Census Bureau 67

Alexander referred to this cost figure as a “rule of 

thumb” when he rejected a mid-decade option. He 

also argued that a mid-decade sample census would 

not likely aid in updating the MAF in ways that would 

improve the following decennial.98 A continuous 

operation, he said, would gain from a more efficient, 

permanent field staff, while a one-time, mid-decade 

census would not.99

Alexander, moreover, did not consider it likely that 

the Census Bureau could convince stakeholders by 

2000 of the “validity and usefulness” for redistricting 

of continuous measurement’s model-based estimates 

from a sample.100 He therefore ruled out replacing 

the decennial’s head count with estimates modeled 

via continuous measurement. Instead, he concluded 

that the Continuous Measurement System would 

have to leave in place either a full decennial census 

or a short-form-only decennial. Alexander’s proposed 

system would keep the short-form enumeration and 

replace the long-form sample survey with intercensal 

estimates created from continuously collected data.101

Discarding these options left Alexander with three 

different data collection methods that he would present to the Census 2000 Task Force in February 1993. 

Refer to Table 1 for side-by-side comparisons of the 

proposals from 1988–1993.

98 Charles H. Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement 

Alternative for the U.S. Census” (Internal Census Bureau Report 

CM-10), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, October 23, 1993, 

p. 17. 99 In 1990, Alexander thought that a permanent field staffer 

working on a continuously updated master address list would 

likely be more efficient and accurate than his/her less well trained 

counterpart hired temporarily to work on the decennial. He said, 

however, that he “wouldn’t want to guess whether a permanent staff 

would be cheaper or more expensive than the current way of doing 

things.” By late 1992, Alexander said that permanent field staffers 

might be more efficient as interviewers too. He may have thought by 

1992 that spreading the sample nationwide would help a Continuous 

Measurement System attract and retain experienced interviewers 

leading to higher quality data, but he did not spell out that 

assumption until an April 1993 report. Alexander would have been 

well aware of that assumption about data quality and permanent 

field representatives before 1993 as it had been floating around the 

Census Bureau since the early 1970s. In addition, Herriot’s 1988 DCP 

proposal had argued that a rolling sample survey would benefit 

from permanent interviewers skilled in persuading interviewees to 

answer and less likely than temporary enumerators to impose their 

own bias on responses. One of Alexander’s critiques of the DCP in 

1988 was that the Census Bureau would have a hard time retaining 

field representatives when the sample rolled to other states and 

regions. Alexander, “Master Structure Address List,” 1990, p. 6; 

Alexander, December 1992, p. 21; Alston, p. 2; and Alexander, ed., 

1988, p. 22. Having worked on numerous Census Bureau household 

surveys such as the Current Population Survey, Alexander was 

well aware of the abilities of permanent field representatives even 

though he did not mention that fact in his research papers. 100 Alexander, December 1992, p. 19. 101 Alexander, December 1992, p. 19.

Narrowing the Field of Alternative Designs for the 

Census: 1992–1993

In 1992 and 1993, the Census Bureau narrowed the 

field of 14 Design Alternative Recommendations, 

thereby boosting the standing of the Continuous 

Measurement Survey proposal. The Census Bureau 

eliminated the idea of using only a sample survey to 

make population estimates because legal reviews 

showed that a headcount was required for apportionment.102 Three designs that called for the Census 

Bureau to collect only enough data to provide the 

population estimates for states or states and counties 

were found to violate constitutional provisions of the 

Voting Rights Act requiring race and ethnic data.103 In 

addition, investigation of Social Security files, immigration records, and state driver’s license databases 

showed that using administrative records alone would 

not yet provide sufficient or consistent enough data 

on the ethnicity and race of individuals to give accurate counts needed for redistricting under the Voting 

Rights Act.104

In 1992 , the Census Bureau narrowed the list of alternative designs to one or two for testing in 1995–

1996.105 The elimination of many designs that made 

major changes to census-taking left only continuous 

measurement and variations of the basic methods 

used in 1990 as possible alternatives. Besides pushing 

forward with research on continuous measurement, 

the Census Bureau was left with altering proposals 

that included starting post-enumeration surveying 

earlier, running nonresponse follow-up operations on 

only a sample of the nonresponding households, and 

conducting matrix sampling for the long form using 

several different long-form questionnaires in each 

census block. 

102 Jay Keller and Carol Van Horn, p. 136. Representative Tom 

Ridge in August 1991 had expressed this opinion from the beginning 

of the public portion of the decennial planning process. He said, 

“And as my colleagues and friends on this committee know, ‘I 

think the constitution says you count, you don’t survey.’” House 

Committee, “Review of Major Alternatives for the Census in the 

Year 2000,” p. 43. Margaret Mikyung Lee, “Legal Issues for Census 

2000,” Congressional Research Service, 1993. 103 Year 2000 Development and Research Staff, Content 

Requirements and Design Alternatives for the 2000 Decennial 

Census,” Design Alternative Recommendation (DAR) # 2, 

September 1992. 104 Year 2000 Development and Research Staff, Design 

Alternative Recommendation (DAR) # 2, September 4, 1992. 

Statement of L. Nye Stevens, director, Planning and Reporting, 

General Government Division, U.S. General Accounting Office, 

“Census Reform: Major Expansion in Use of Administrative Records 

for 2000 is Doubtful,” (GAO/T-GGD-92-54, June 26, 1992). 105 Miskura, “Forward From 1990,” p. 40.
68 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Proposals for a Continuous Measurement System

Proposal Title 

(Abbreviated) The Decade Census Program Memo: "A Possible Modification of DCP" 

Three General Prototypes for 

Continuous Measurement (CM-1)

Proposed by Herriott, Bateman, and McCarthy C. Alexander C. Alexander

Date 9/27/1988 10/31/1988 1/8/1993

Audience 

receiving 

the report or 

statement

Census Bureau executives and senior 

staff.

• Division chief of Statistical 

Methods Division (later renamed).

• Members of the Demographic 

Areas Committee to Critique the 

ISAS Proposal.

• Chief of the 21st Century Planning 

Staff.

Unknown.

Components of 

the proposed 

system

• A reduced short form decennial 

census.

• Rolling sample of states to give 

tract level information once a 

decade.

• Annual characteristic estimates 

for large areas (100,000 and 

over) and states.

• Module survey add on questions 

for large areas.

• Intercensal population estimates 

for governmental units (controls 

for surveys).

• A continuously updated "Master 

Structure Address List."

• A targeted survey of blocks with 

large changes in address units.

• A "census" of housing information 

of 1 in 9 blocks each year.

• A "survey" of a sample of 

households in 1 in 9 blocks.

• Annual "projections" of 

demographic characteristics for 

blocks or tracts using survey 

results and administrative records.

Three alternative prototypes for CM: 

1. A rolling sample census.

2. Cumulative rolling samples.

3. Integrated census updates.

Sample size • 204,000/mo for the survey 

providing data on tract/block 

groups areas.

• 110,000/mo for a survey to create 

annual estimates for large areas 

(100K+).

• 25,000/mo for a survey to give 

estimates for the largest areas 

(500K+).

 NA The decade long sampling fraction would be 

determined later based on the nation's data 

needs. 

Size of areas for 

which annual 

estimates

100,000 and over. All areas. NA 

Size of areas for 

5-yr estimates

No use of multiyear. No use of multiyear. Smaller areas. 

Oversampling Y/N 

details

1 in 2 for small governmental units 

(SGUs).

NA Perhaps extra canvassing to improve the 

Master Address File (MAF) in rural areas. 

Reliability of 

Data (most 

often expressed 

in terms of the 

coefficient of 

variation (CV))

• Did not specify reliability for tract 

and block level estimates beyond 

desired level of reliability.

• Estimates would have a 10 

percent coefficient of variation 

(CV) for a 10 percent population 

characteristic for an area of 

100,000.

Unknown NA 

Projected 

start of full 

implementation

1995 After 2000. NA 

Relationship 

to CPS other 

household 

surveys

• It would not replace them but 

they might use its address list as 

their sampling frames.

• It might help locate areas with 

rare populations for which they 

would want to oversample.

NA Integrated census updates would use their 

data for the counties where they were 

collected and thereby share costs.

Cost estimates 

for the proposed 

system

$180 million/year. No mention. Did not give an estimate but said the 

cost from the intercensal estimates was a 

disadvantage, however other surveys would 

observe savings from the benefit from MAF, 

shared data, and shared travel expenses.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau 69

Data Users Challenge a Headcount-Only Census, Cite 

Demand for Timelier Small-Area Data: 1992–1993

Theories and later research on the impact of questionnaire length on response rates helped garner key 

Congressional support for the idea of spreading out 

most data collection throughout the decade. This key 

part of the Continuous Measurement Survey proposal 

had been floated as a theory in the Census Bureau for 

a while, even spurring Herriot’s and Johnson’s proposals, and had made its way to Congress. In 1990, 

Representative Sawyer urged the agency to consider 

reducing the decennial questionnaire’s burden on 

the public and eliminate what he called the “perception of intrusiveness” by focusing data collection on 

“core” information. Representative Sawyer had cited 

reducing privacy concerns when he suggested that 

the Census Bureau use rolling samples throughout 

the decade.106

Surveys of census respondents bolstered that consideration over the next 2 years. A 1991 National 

Opinion Research Center (NORC) study contracted 

by the Census Bureau revealed that the gap between 

mail-return rates for long and short forms had widened since 1980.107 More importantly, Sawyer pointed 

to the Census Bureau’s 1992 research on response 

rates when he suggested to data users and his 

Congressional colleagues to consider the value of 

moving questions to other vehicles. Representative 

Tom Ridge from Pennsylvania, the minority chair of 

Sawyer’s subcommittee, concurred with Sawyer on 

both ideas.108 Sawyer advocated for removing questions from the decennial census and replacing the 

data collected by them with estimates from sample 

surveys. He encouraged the Population Association 

of America (PAA) and participants in a Census 

Bureau conference on the undercount to view alternative data collection methods as an opportunity to 

improve the accuracy of decennial census data and 

to gain detailed estimates more than once every 10 

years.109

106 Sawyer, July 13, 1990, p. 14. 107 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee, April 25–26, 1991, p. 12. 108 House Subcommittee on Census and Population of the 

Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, 20th Century Planning: 

Decennial Questionnaire Content, 102d Cong., 2d Session, October 

1, 1992, pp. 1–3, and 43. 109 Representative Tom Sawyer, “Rethinking the Census: 

Reconciling the Demands for Accuracy and Precision in the 

21st Century.” Proceedings of the Research Conference on 

Undercounted Ethnic Populations, U.S. Census Bureau, May 6 , 1993, 

p. 434.

That same research on response rates also could have 

been used to support an opposing position that could 

have stopped continuous measurement dead in its 

tracks were it not for witness after witness undercutting efforts to curtail data collection altogether.110 At 

Congressional oversight hearings in October 1992, 

data users defended the breadth of data collected in 

the long form from members of Congress who sought 

to curtail the decennial’s content in the hopes of cutting its cost and improving its coverage rates. Some 

of those voices sought to do away with the collection of long-form data altogether, i.e., eliminate the 

decennial sample survey and provide no alternative 

to replace its data. Speakers invited to oppose this 

plan represented concerns ranging from the private 

sector to human resource planning services, to state 

and local government, and even included metropolitan planning organizations. All witnesses detailed 

their continuing need for census data for planning 

and eligibility for federal programs. They maintained 

the value of the data collection as a service to the 

country. They challenged contentions that census 

long-form data and small-area data were of use only 

to researchers and marketers.111 For example, Joan 

Gentili Finch, the director of research and planning 

from the retail chain Dayton-Hudson, detailed how 

her employer still used census tract demographic 

data when selecting new sites. Ms. Finch said that 

her company, owners of the chains Target, Marshall 

Fields, and Mervyns, continued to rely on census 

data even though it could afford to purchase point of 

sale data and bought demographic data from several private vendors. In addition, she informed the 

Congressional representatives of the extent to which 

some of the private databases repackaged census 

small-area data for businesses. In the same hearing, 

110 As later paragraphs will show, in October 1992, data users 

were not yet in support of shifting data from the decennial to 

a rolling sample survey. They merely defended the continued 

collection of the full content of the 1990 long form from voices 

questioning the need or wisdom of questionnaires they viewed as 

overly lengthy and potentially intrusive. When these data users 

spoke, however, they helped crystallize for the Congress members 

on the committee that the data needed to be collected, that it 

continued to be relevant, and that more frequent collection even at 

the small geographic level was worthwhile. 111 Two years later Charles (Chip) Alexander argued that 

testimony in those hearings and in advisory committees had 

dispelled that contention. Charles H. Alexander, “Some Ideas for 

Integrating the Continuous Measurement System Into The Nation’s 

System of Household Surveys (CM-19A)” draft, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, January 6, 1995. In a similar vein, Dr. Judith Lessler 

(from the research organization, Battelle) recalled a subcommittee 

hearing in the late 1980s where Congress asked to hear from “real 

users” not from “academic users” when the proposal at the time 

was to eliminate census tract level data. Minutes and Report of 

Committee Recommendations of the Census Advisory Committees, 

April 15–16, 1993, p. 24.
70 U.S. Census Bureau

Judy McKinney-Cherry, of the Delaware Development 

Office, testified that smaller businesses also continued to rely heavily on census small-area data.112 With 

these testimonies, the two experts countered the 

notion that data from private vendors had supplanted 

use of census small-area data among businesses.

Where other voices in Congress argued that the federal government ought not collect data that are used 

largely by the private sector, other speakers attested 

to the data’s use by local governments. Ann Azari, 

representing the National League of Cities, spoke 

about sex and age data being crucial to planning 

new schools and vital for the new use of evaluating 

compliance with the Community Reinvestment Act. 

In addition, Azari was not acting in her capacity as 

co-chair of the Census 2000 Advisory Committee 

that day, but she reminded the members of Congress 

that 80 percent of municipalities had less than 5,000 

people. “The U.S. Census,” Azari said, “may be their 

only source of planning data,” because of their size. 

Other speakers outlined the need of community colleges and other Jobs Training Partnership Act grantees for long-form data at the census tract level under 

the Act. Meanwhile a representative from the Atlanta 

Regional Commission ran through more than 20 variables used by planning organizations at the census 

tract or block group level.113 Adding more evidence 

to the case for continued small-area data collection 

by the Census Bureau, the Population Association of 

America (PAA) wrote to the subcommittee saying 

that when it surveyed its members, 60 percent of 

those responding said they used census data at the 

census tract level or below and that they could not 

identify alternative data sources.114

Those testifying during the October 1992 

Congressional hearings provided Congress with a 

glimpse of the mindset of data users and an awareness that a potentially broad base of users still 

wanted frequent release of long-form data for small 

geographic areas and small population groups. In 

Congressional hearings on plans for the content of 

the questionnaire in October 1992, Joan Gentili Finch 

urged Congress to direct the Census Bureau to provide most of the information every 5 years. The data 

112 House Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial 

Questionnaire Content, p. 29. 113 House Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial 

Questionnaire Content, p. 37. 114 Linda Gage of the Population Association of America to 

Representative Thomas Sawyer, November 12, 1992, in House 

Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial Questionnaire 

Content, p. 124.

requested included population, number of households, age, race/ethnicity, and income. She made a 

statement that was crucial for the adoption of the 

Continuous Measurement Survey proposal, stating 

that “change occurs too rapidly in many communities 

to be assessed only once per decade.”115 With such 

statements, data users reminded Congress of the 

multitudes of users who had spoken in support of 

mid-decade censuses since the 1960s.

Though the proposal for a Continuous Measurement 

System that had been circulated was in the bare 

bones, two-paragraph format that appeared in 

Miskura’s 1992 papers, Congressman Sawyer had 

close ties to people familiar with the subject. He 

referred to this short description when he began 

asking data users testifying before the Oversight 

Committee to weigh in on the potential of rolling 

sample surveys to deliver the data they wanted.116

Most of the speakers in October 1992 said they did 

not know enough about rolling sample surveys to 

know whether they would deliver the small-area data 

they needed, but time and again they stated emphatically that simply expanding the Current Population 

Survey (CPS) would not meet their needs. 

In September 1992, the Congressional appropriations 

committee directed the Census Bureau to investigate 

alternative ways of gathering decennial long-form 

data. It specifically mentioned rolling surveys or the 

expansion of existing surveys.117 Many of the data 

users testified that they believed continuing surveys 

like the longitudinal surveys of that era provided 

data only for the nation at large. Others said that 

those surveys, at their broadest, provided data only 

on a dozen large states. A speaker from Delaware 

described having to wait for 3 years of data from the 

CPS to draw any conclusions for her small state and 

that even then the data suffered from reliability problems. Joan Finch opposed the rolling sample survey 

as a substitute for the decennial because she believed 

it could provide only metro-level data, whereas 

Dayton Hudson and other retailers needed social 

and economic characteristics at the census tract 

115 House Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial 

Questionnaire Content, p. 100. 116 TerriAnn Lowenthal, former chief of staff of Representative 

Thomas C. Sawyer, interview by author, May 8, 2012. House 

Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial Questionnaire 

Content, p. 100. 117 House Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on the 

Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies, Making Appropriations for the Departments of 

Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1993, Report 102-918, 

Washington, DC, September 28, 1992, pp. 66–67.
U.S. Census Bureau 71

level.118 The co-chair of the Census 2000 Advisory 

Committee responded to the question in a way showing that she had heard only of Herriot’s proposal for 

rolling samples of groups of states. She expressed her 

concern by saying, “we are going to get in a position 

where we have more recent data for some parts of 

the country than in others.”119

Key members of the Congressional oversight committee took such testimony and feedback from other 

hearings to develop a vision of continuous measurement as a potential three-party compromise 

between: 

• Data users demanding status quo collection of all 

1990 long-form items. 

• Data users needing more timely or current data. 

• Census critics wanting the Census Bureau to collect only a bare minimum of information to provide 

a count of the population. 

In their speeches at those hearings, the members of 

Congress did not directly bestow their blessing on 

continuous measurement, but they voiced support for 

key components of the concept, thus adding member 

support to the assumptions within the continuous 

measurement proposal. 

Concurrent with those defenses of small area census 

data, Representative Sawyer began instructing users 

about the false precision of long-form estimates from 

1990. According to Sawyer, when users argued that 

only the decennial long-form survey could collect 

small-area data accurate enough to be reliable, they 

were operating under a false premise. Representative 

Sawyer asked his audiences to consider that 1990 

decennial data for small areas “looked accurate 

because it was precise.” If the Census Bureau had 

published the margin of error on such data, they likely 

would reconsider that belief. Moreover, Sawyer said 

that if data users thought about how outdated decennial small-area data could be towards the end of 

the decade, then they would understand the advantage in the Census Bureau switching to a sample 

118 House Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial 

Questionnaire Content, p. 97. 119 The co-chair of the Census 2000 Advisory Committee 

responded to the question in a way showing that she had heard only 

of Herriot’s proposal for rolling samples of groups of states. She 

expressed her concern by saying, “we are going to get in a position 

where we have more recent data for some parts of the country than 

in others.” House Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial 

Questionnaire Content, p. 48.

survey providing “more timely” data throughout the 

decade.120

The timeliness of census data took an even greater 

importance for Representative Sawyer along with his 

audience in May 1993 and his Congressional colleagues. Sawyer and other members of midwestern 

states had wanted estimates that were more accurate 

for school-aged children in poverty by school district by the time of Daniel Melnick’s 1991 testimony 

about census data being out-of-date. They felt that 

incomes in their manufacturing-heavy states had 

not fared as well as they had in other states, but this 

fact would not be reflected if the income figures 

from 1989 were the basis of the formulas. By 1993, 

members of Congress from New England joined 

them. Several New England states, whose economies 

had been doing well at the time of the 1990 Census, 

experienced the recession that had earlier affected 

other states. If federal aid to school districts under 

Title 1 Local Education Agency (LEA) grants were still 

dependent on 1990 Census income statistics, those 

states would not receive their fair share. In addition, 

Census Bureau personnel working on continuous 

measurement had shown Sawyer and his staff the 

margins of error associated with the 1990 Census 

estimates for poverty rates at the census tract level. 

In this context, Representative Sawyer told audiences 

they should embrace continuous measurement’s 

promise of up-to-date statistics. It also provided the 

context for which he requested the Census Bureau 

to create what became the Small Area Income and 

Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) and lobbied his colleagues to provide the funds to research their creation via continuous measurement.121 Later research 

in 1999–2002 showed that interviewers working on 

the American Community Survey (ACS) had achieved 

lower item nonresponse rates than had their 2000 

Census counterparts.122

Building an Initial Prototype for Continuous 

Measurement 

After eliminating possible designs for continuous 

measurement in February 1993, Charles Alexander 

120 Housing Committee, 20th Century Planning: Decennial 

Questionnaire Content, pp. 51–52, Sawyer, “Rethinking . . . ,” p. 434, 

and House Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Population of 

the Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, Review of Interim 

Report by the National Academy of Sciences on Census Reform, 

May 27, 1993, 103rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1994, pp. 1–2. 121 Lowenthal, interview, May 8, 2012. Cynthia Taeuber, email 

message, September 10, 2011, and Sawyer, May 1993. 122 Refer to “Chapter 4, Studies Compare Census 2000, C2SS and 

Multi-Year Averages From ACS Test Sites [1999–2001].”
72 U.S. Census Bureau

laid out three general prototypes to be tested and 

evaluated within the Census Bureau. Like Bruce 

Johnson and Roger Herriot before him, he sought 

primarily to simplify the decennial census so that the 

Census Bureau could deliver data more frequently 

and in a timelier fashion. All three prototypes aligned 

with key stakeholders’ demands that the Census 

Bureau collect only a basic head count and minimal 

data during each decennial census. Census Bureau 

planners likely knew that a convergence of interests 

would provide the prototypes additional support 

within a Census Bureau eager to please decision 

makers controlling budgets within the Administration 

and the Congress. Data collection traditionally done 

by the decennial sample survey called the “long 

form” could be spread over the course of the decade. 

These first three prototypes of the “continuous measurement” designs were not mutually exclusive, and 

Alexander said the Census Bureau might consider 

pulling elements from all three.123

In one prototype, the Census Bureau would conduct 

a rolling sample census each year. It would sample 

a fraction of the nation’s addresses each year. From 

this rolling sample census, the Census Bureau would 

produce annual estimates for “long-form” characteristics for large geographic areas. If the Census 

Bureau received funding for a large enough survey, 

the rolling sample census would allow the agency to 

make annual estimates for “small” geographic areas. 

The Census Bureau also might be able to add supplementary modules to the questionnaires of this rolling 

sample census to produce additional content for 

large areas (subjects to be determined). Unlike later 

proposals, the reference date would likely be one 

fixed date with data collected in the 6 months around 

that date.124

A second prototype would use a cumulative rolling 

sample. Each month, the Census Bureau would survey a fraction of the nation’s addresses to produce 

long-form type information annually for large areas 

(monthly or quarterly for the nation) by cumulating the sample from each year. To provide data on 

smaller areas, the Census Bureau would use larger 

cumulations hypothesized at 2 years or 5 years. 

Also, data from surveys cumulated over 2 years or 5 

123 Charles H. Alexander, “Three General Prototypes for a 

Continuous Measurement System (CM-1),” U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, January 8, 1993 pp. 3–4. 124 Alexander said the sample size would determine how small 

the geographic areas were for which the system would estimate 

characteristics. Alexander, “Three General Prototypes,” January 8, 

1993, pp. 3–4. 

years would be necessary for the Census Bureau to 

produce detailed cross-tabulations even for larger 

areas. The cumulated surveys would be large enough 

for the Census Bureau to provide annual, quarterly, 

and monthly national estimates and general characteristics for the population. They also would be 

large enough for the Census Bureau to make annual 

estimates for larger geographical areas and multiyear cumulative estimates for small geographical 

areas. With this model, the reference date would 

float throughout the year. Also in this model, the 

Continuous Measurement Program might draw some 

data from the Census Bureau’s current household 

surveys, such as the CPS, as long as research showed 

that doing so would not harm those surveys’ primary 

objectives such as providing monthly unemployment 

estimates. As with the rolling sample census, Charles 

Alexander envisioned that the Census Bureau might 

add supplements to acquire additional content.125

Alexander called the third initial prototype for the 

Continuous Measurement System Integrated Census 

Updates (ICU), and it drew heavily on his proposal 

from 1988.126 The Census Bureau would estimate basic 

census block-level characteristics using statistical 

models.127 Most of these updates would be based on 

the MAF. The Census Bureau would produce estimates based on:

• A census of new addresses in blocks where 

updates to the MAF identified large changes. 

• Data from a representative sample of old and new 

addresses in other blocks.

• Data from administrative files such as Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) records. 

125 Alexander, “Three General Prototypes,” (CM-1), January 8, 

1993, pp. 5–6. 126 Refer to chapter “Need for Change? The Status of Proposals 

1988–1990.” 127 Alexander did not describe the methods by which the 

modeling would work but referred readers to works by Alvey and 

Scheuren and, given his later citations, was influenced by research 

then being conducted by Ghosh and Rao and Little and Rubin. For 

Alexander and his colleagues’ early work on modeling, refer to 

Charles H. Alexander and S. I. Wetrogan, “Small Area Estimation 

With Continuous Measurement: What We Have and What We 

Want” (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-14) Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, paper to appear in the Proceedings of the 1994 

Census Bureau Annual Research Conference, March 22, 1994. For 

explanations on modeling as conceptualized in 1993 and cited 

later by Alexander, refer to Wendy Alvey and Fritz Scheuren, 

“Background for an Administrative Record Census,” American 

Statistical Association Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 

1982; R. Platek, J. N. K. Rao, C.E. Sarndal, and M. D. Singh, eds, 

“Small Area Statistics: An International Symposium,” Wiley, New 

York, 1987; M. Ghosh and J. N. K. Rao, “Small Area Estimation: An 

Appraisal,” Statistical Science, 9, 1994, pp.55–93; and R. J. A. Little 

and D. B. Rubin, Statistical Analysis With Missing Data, John Wiley, 

New York, 1987.
U.S. Census Bureau 73

The range of data products that the Census Bureau 

created in the Integrated Census Updates would 

include annual estimates of short-form characteristics for large areas, annual model-based estimates of 

short-form characteristics for small areas, and possibly model-based synthetic estimates of long-form 

characteristics for large and small areas.128

Both the cumulative rolling sample and the integrated census updates prototypes estimated that the 

Census Bureau could reduce costs by incorporating 

data collected from the Census Bureau’s current 

household surveys. The third prototype might use 

data from administrative records to help produce 

short-form-type characteristics data for blocks and 

in the long run might use them to produce long-form 

estimates.129

By the time Alexander presented a rough outline of 

a Continuous Measurement System to the Technical 

Committee of the 2000 Census Task Force in 

February 1993, he and his colleagues had merged the 

three prototypes. They made that decision based on 

more brainstorming sessions on how to balance costs 

of a proposed Continuous Measurement System with 

methods they determined were feasible. For instance, 

Alexander informed the Technical Committee that 

the Census Bureau likely would not be able to meet 

long-form content needs at an acceptable price 

128 Alexander, “Three General Prototypes,” (CM-1), January 8, 

1993, pp. 6–8. 129 Alexander, “Three General Prototypes,” (CM-1), January 8, 

1993, pp. 6–8.

Table 2.

Household Surveys Evaluated in Relation to Continuous Measurement (Either as a Source for Data 

for Continuous Measurement or Later as a Survey Benefiting From Continuous Measurement’s 

Screening, Estimates, or Address Listing)

Name of the Survey Conducted by the 

Census Bureau Federal Agency Sponsoring the Survey

Current Population Survey (CPS) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

American Housing Survey (AHS) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG) National Science Foundation (NSF)

National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Survey of Inmates of Local Jails (SIU) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Survey of Inmates of State Correctional Facilities (SISCF) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)

Consumer Expenditure Surveys (CES) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Bureau of Labor Statistics Rent Survey Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Continuous Measurement Sample Survey.

without cumulations of samples. The Continuous 

Measurement Program would create estimates with 

data collected from current household surveys and a 

new Continuous Measurement Sample Survey (Table 

2). That new survey would concentrate sampling 

in blocks identified by MAF updates as undergoing 

major change and areas not covered by the current 

household surveys.130

In that February 1993 presentation, Alexander 

stated that data products created by the Continuous 

Measurement System would be asymmetrical. The 

Census Bureau would use longer cumulations of 

samples to create estimates for more detailed characteristics or small demographic groups at each geographic level. Estimates for a given year would have 

less detail even for large areas.131

Alexander laid out before the Technical Committee 

his vision for a large research project, one that 

likely would not bear results until after the 2000 

Census. In February 1993, Alexander reported that 

he was uncertain whether the Census Bureau would 

win approval to test continuous measurement as a 

replacement for the decennial long form because 

continuous measurement may not have won enough 

public acceptance by 1995 or 1996.132 In particular, 

sponsors of current surveys might oppose a new 

130 Alexander, “Overview of Continuous Measurement for the 

Technical Committee,” pp. 2–3. 131 Alexander, “Overview of Continuous Measurement for the 

Technical Committee,” pp. 4–5. 132 Alexander, “Overview of Continuous Measurement for the 

Technical Committee,” p. 9. 
74 U.S. Census Bureau

survey collecting similar data for their surveys fearing 

it might open them to the danger that Congressional 

budget hawks would slash funding for programs 

they saw as redundant.133 Moreover, the Demographic 

Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) also determined 

that the Census Bureau probably could not convince data users of the acceptability of model-based 

estimates by the deadline necessary to do the testing. For example, members of Congress, local governments, and journalists used to thinking of both 

the decennial short-form and long-form results as 

outright headcounts might fear modeling as open to 

manipulation. In addition, Alexander believed synthetic estimates and inclusion of data from current 

surveys might not be evaluated fully by 2000. Given 

all those uncertainties about public and stakeholder 

acceptance, he told the Technical Committee that 

the Census Bureau would likely drop the long form 

for 2000 only if Congress mandated it dropped or 

if small-area data were not needed.134 Alexander’s 

uncertainty would prove prophetic on public reaction but not on the Census Bureau’s initial proposed 

timeline to implement such a program.

Mindful of political and fiscal constraints on the agency’s research programs, the Technical Committee 

strongly advised Alexander to move ahead, while prioritizing those elements of the prototype that could 

be implemented in time to replace the 2000 long 

form. Members of the Technical Committee would 

have been well aware of the House Appropriations 

Committee’s report from the previous September 

and its charge to the Census Bureau to concentrate research methods on cutting the cost of the 

next decennial. They also had to have known how 

that same budget report shaved $8 million from the 

Census Bureau’s budget request for 1993 while also 

stipulating that the agency’s research that year examine rolling sample surveys.135 In this context, Census 

Bureau executive staff on the Technical Committee 

advised Alexander to pursue a prototype to be used 

in the 2000 Census.136

133 Alexander, “Overview of Continuous Measurement for the 

Technical Committee,” p. 6; and Charles H. Alexander, “A Prototype 

Design For Continuous Measurement,” (CM-7), U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, n.d. the draft was circulated as an attachment to 

an April 8, 1993 memo, p. 12. 134 Alexander, “Overview of Continuous Measurement for the 

Technical Committee,” p. 5. Alexander, “A Prototype Design For 

Continuous Measurement,” p. 8. 135 U.S. House of Representatives, “Making Appropriations,” 

Report 102-918, p. 67. 136 Charles Alexander in David Pemberton’s notes on a discussion 

with Charles Alexander, Jay Waite, and Cynthia Taeuber, June 29, 

1999, p. 5.

Alexander and his colleagues complied, modifying the prototype to eliminate components he 

believed would delay its approval or implementation. 

Alexander dropped the idea of using anything that 

would duplicate or replace the current surveys. In 

addition, he reduced the role of synthetic estimates 

to where they would serve as controls for estimates 

produced using survey data.137

Considering that the properties of large sample 

surveys were “well known,” unlike the use of modeling and incorporation of household survey data, 

Alexander reshaped the proposal into something 

that assumed the basic form of what later became 

the ACS. 138 The speed with which Alexander took 

over 20 general ideas for continuous measurement 

in December 1992 and made one prototype was 

remarkable, a testimony to his intelligence and writing ability. Also, it was testimony to the willingness of 

Alexander’s superiors to fast-track approval of those 

drafts.

In April 1993, Susan Miskura, chief of the 2KS circulated Alexander’s revised prototype to most senior 

executives and division chiefs at the Census Bureau 

and sent it to be refined in a Joint Application 

Development (JAD) workshop led by Arthur Cresce 

of 2KS. By that time, Alexander and his colleagues 

had made a cumulative rolling sample survey the 

main data collection method. They named the new 

survey the Intercensal Long Form (ILF) Survey 

and initially thought it would have a sample size of 

250,000 households a month.139

The prototype would still use modeling and administrative records but only to provide controls for 

estimates made from data from the sample survey. 

Ongoing research would help determine if the administrative data could be used to model content after 

2000. In another innovation common to both the 

April 1993 prototype and the ACS, Alexander suggested following up with only a fraction of households not responding to the mailed questionnaire. 

That is, the system’s interviewers would attempt to 

137 Memorandum from Charles H. Alexander of DSMD to Susan 

Miskura, chief 2KS R&D Staff, Proposed Technical Research to 

Select a Continuous Measurement Prototype & Status of Research 

on Continuous Measurement (Internal Census Bureau Reports 

CM-3). U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, March 25, 1993, p. 14; 

Alexander, “A Prototype Design,” p. 7; Alexander, “A Continuous 

Measurement Alternative,” October 23, 1993, p. 40. 138 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” 

October 23, 1993, p. 15. The April prototype did not elaborate how 

Alexander derived that number. 139 Alexander, “A Prototype Design for Continuous Measurement,” 

pp. 1, 4.
U.S. Census Bureau 75

interview by telephone only a fraction of households 

that did not respond by mail and would personally visit a further fraction of potential interviewees 

missed by telephone. The April 1993 prototype was 

Alexander’s first mention of this idea, one that would 

prove a key component of the ACS.140

Winning Internal Stakeholders’ Approval of 

Continuous Measurement to Go Public

In addition to bringing to light Alexander’s ideas on 

how to revise the proposal, the presentation of a 

Continuous Measurement System to the Technical 

Committee brought the latest work on the prototypes into the spotlight for Census Bureau executives 

on the committee who would eventually make the 

decision to proceed with it. Census Bureau Acting 

Director Harry Scarr and several associate directors 

served on the committee, as did division chiefs from 

the Field and Decennial Statistical Studies divisions.141

Scarr was already a supporter of continuous measurement and had been before moving from the 

Department of Commerce to the Census Bureau to 

become acting director. Scarr liked the proposals’ 

ability to deliver intercensal data and believed a 

mid-decade census was too costly to win funding in 

light of the benefits it offered.142

Alexander pitched the prototype as one that met 

the senior executives’ most pressing needs. These 

executives were on the verge of releasing a notice in 

the Federal Register laying out for public comment 

criteria by which the Census Bureau would judge 

any design alternative for the decennial census. 

Alexander’s overview specifically addressed how 

continuous measurement would meet several of 

the criteria deemed most important by the Census 

Bureau. For example, it simplified the decennial 

census’s job of producing apportionment and voting 

rights data by reducing the number of resources the 

Census Bureau would have to expend compared to 

the resources required for collecting responses to the 

long form’s greater number of questions. Alexander 

said continuous measurement met all the “necessary 

criteria” as identified in the Federal Register.143

Furthermore, Alexander told the Technical 

Committee that cost projections for the new system 

140Alexander, “A Prototype Design for Continuous Measurement,” 

p. 4–5. 141 Task Force for Designing the Year Census 2000, Reinventing 

the Decennial Census, p. 75. 142 Cynthia Taeuber, email message to author, September 5, 2011 

and Paula Schneider, interview with author, October 27, 2011. 143 Alexander, “Overview for the Technical Committee,” p. 8. 

were at that time flexible though imprecise. They 

depended on what data the ongoing content review 

determined as necessary at the small area and small 

domain level. If Census Bureau and OMB reviews of 

federal data requirements showed that small-area 

data were no longer needed in great detail, the 

Continuous Measurement System could get by with 

a much smaller and cheaper survey. In addition, if 

those reviews showed that a host of data previously 

collected by the decennial short form were no longer 

necessary, those variables could be shifted to continuous measurement. 

As a result of that shift the decennial census could 

concentrate more efforts to improve coverage such 

as greater follow-up with hard-to-reach populations. 

When describing the model, Alexander directly 

stated how these possible benefits of continuous 

measurement met “desirable” criteria of cost reduction and improved coverage laid out in the Federal 

Register notice.144 The committee therefore heard 

many well-grounded ideas that recommended continuous measurement as a major design alternative. 

Committee members already knew that members of 

the Congressional oversight and appropriations committees wanted the Census Bureau to seriously consider rolling sample surveys such as the Continuous 

Measurement Survey.145 Now they had further evaluation stating continuous measurement might meet the 

Census Bureau’s long standing dream of providing 

more intercensal data while at the same time helping 

it gather constitutionally mandated data and potentially fixing budget and coverage problems.

While Alexander’s presentation to the Technical 

Committee helped spur the Continuous Measurement 

Survey’s approval by the Census Bureau for research 

and development, his statements on content and 

small-area data paradoxically delayed its implementation. For two senior staff members on the 

Technical Committee, Alexander’s comments created the impression that continuous measurement 

would not deliver small-area data at all. When those 

senior staff relayed that impression to data users, it 

144 Alexander, “Overview for the Technical Committee,” p. 1. The 

Census Bureau earlier had gone public with its effort to increase 

such measures as noted by the GAO. GAO, “1990 Results Show 

Need for Fundamental Reform,” June 9, 1992, p. 51. 145 Refer to the section in this chapter titled “Gathering Ideas for 

Design Alternatives” for the Decennial Census Improvement Act.
76 U.S. Census Bureau

sparked a firestorm of opposition to the Continuous 

Measurement Survey proposal.146

The interpretations of Alexander’s remarks to the 

Technical Committee also underscored a tension 

within the Census Bureau. Some staff believed that 

the Census Bureau should concentrate its research 

and development on making the decennial headcount 

as accurate as possible. Others prioritized longform data for its value to data users and perceived 

its future assured as part of the decennial census. If 

long-form data was decoupled from the decennial 

census, the budget for that data collection could be 

cut and data users left with nothing. Others believed 

that data users were having to resort to their own 

data collection by the end of each decade because 

long-form data had grown too dated.147

In the Joint Application Development Workshop held 

May 25–28, 1993, Census Bureau supervisors and 

statisticians identified benefits of the Continuous 

Measurement Survey prototype and weaknesses that 

would have to be evaluated. Workshop participants 

concluded that the prototype was operationally 

feasible and the cost estimates, while needing more 

146 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee of April 15–16, 1993, p. 85. The GAO also interpreted 

Continuous Measurement proposals as saying that the system 

would not deliver small-area data. Statement of William M. Hunt, 

director, Federal Management Issues, General Government 

Division, United States General Accounting Office, Focused Action 

Needed Soon to Achieve Fundamental Breakthroughs, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, and Postal 

Personnel, Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, House 

of Representatives, GAO/T-GGD-93-32, May 27, 1993. For more 

information, refer to the section on Campbell Gibson’s and William 

Butz’s comments to the Census Advisory Committee 147 Schneider, interview, October 27, 2011, Campbell Gibson, email 

message to author, September 1, 2011, Taeuber, email message to 

author, September 11, 2011.

concrete numbers, were “not obviously prohibitive.”148

On that basis, in early June 1993, Susan Miskura recommended to Associate Director Robert Tortora and 

Acting Director Harry Scarr that the Census Bureau 

take the proposal public in the fall and dedicate the 

research and design resources needed for this effort. 

According to Miskura, senior staff saw the potential 

for the system to provide timely data. “Continuous 

measurement,” Susan Miskura concluded, “is the 

kind of fundamental reform desired by important 

external stakeholders.”149 Miskura did not single 

out which stakeholders, but Acting Director Scarr 

and other executives had noted the words “fundamental reform” coming from the House Committee 

on Oversight and Accountability and the General 

Accounting Office (GAO).150 Miskura recommended 

that the executives create a high-level steering 

committee and interdivisional working teams to flesh 

out key assumptions and features such as content, 

cost estimates, and stakeholder concerns.151 The 

executives agreed.152 Based in part on recommendations from Susan Miskura and a Joint Application 

Development Workshop, Census Bureau executives 

decided that the agency would go public with continuous measurement as one of the two designs it would 

commence testing in 1995–1996. 

148 The document did single out likely operational problems in 

rural areas. Art Cresce, “Report of the Continuous Measurement 

Joint Application Development Workshop,” Attachment 3 of Memo 

from Robert Tortora to Members of the Continuous Measurement 

Design Steering Committee, “First Meeting of the Continuous 

Measurement Design Steering Committee,” June 30, 1993, pp. i-1 

to i-3. Note: The JAD participants were “unwilling to claim any 

concrete benefits for year-zero census coverage or short-form 

data quality of eliminating the long form. Evidence . . . is lacking.” 

And Continuous Measurement might add benefits for an improved 

MAF leading to 2010 Census quality or costs but little benefit for 

Census 2000 quality or costs was seen,” p. i-4. Later documents 

clarified this point, saying initial cost benefits had evaporated when 

JAD participants proposed tripling sample sizes between 1998 and 

2000 to deliver estimates from accelerated cumulations. After that 

initial 3-year period accelerated to replace data from the long form, 

sample sizes would fall. 149 Susan Miskura, “Continuous Measurement—Thoughts for 

Discussion,” a proposal to Census Bureau management, June 10, 

1993, p. 1. 150 Hearing, June 15, 1991 p. 1, and GAO, “1990 Results Show Need 

for Fundamental Reform,” June 9, 1992. 151 Susan Miskura, “Continuous Measurement—Thoughts for 

Discussion,” p. 1. 152 Email from Susan Miskura to Charles Alexander, Art Cresce, 

Jim Dinwiddie, and Joe Knot, June 12, 1993.
U.S. Census Bureau 77

Census Bureau executives also may have been 

swayed by how this model fit with other demands 

by Congressional and other major stakeholders. As 

mentioned above, the Appropriations Committee 

had gone on record instructing the Census Bureau 

to focus 2000 Census research and development 

on rolling sample surveys even before Alexander 

presented his proposal to the Technical Committee. 

The Appropriation Committee’s report making that 

stipulation reiterated its members’ belief that reducing the number of questions on the decennial would 

increase response rates and census coverage, while 

reducing survey costs.153 As Alexander’s design was 

the only design alternative using a rolling sample 

survey, Census Bureau executives saw indications 

153 House Committee, “Making Appropriations,” p 67.

Figure 1.

Continuous Measurement Design Steering Committee Charters for Working Teams

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
78 U.S. Census Bureau

from Congress that they should support continuous 

measurement.154

The interim report of Committee on National 

Statistics (CNSTAT) urged a continuous measurement 

research program, though somewhat tentatively. 

The CNSTAT panel released its interim report in May 

1993, between the time that Alexander’s prototype 

circulated and the executives decided to go public with continuous measurement. In its report, the 

panel stated that it saw some promise in continuous 

measurement but was worried by its possibility to 

increase census costs. The CNSTAT panel saw more 

promise in the use of administrative records in census 

data collection and highly recommended that the 

Census Bureau engage in research on the probable 

use of these records for 2010.155 The revised continuous measurement prototype included an ongoing 

evaluation of administrative records, making it a vehicle for the Census Bureau to comply with the CNSTAT 

panel’s recommendation. 

With these forces swirling in the background, senior 

executives responded enthusiastically and quickly to 

the recommendation to pursue continuous measurement in census tests. Tortora, who oversaw census 

statistical designs and standards, even stated that 

he wanted to chair a steering committee to bring 

together heads of various Census Bureau divisions 

and directorates to spearhead work on continuous 

measurement.156 By the end of June 1993, the Census 

Bureau had created the Continuous Measurement 

Design Steering Committee and had drawn up char154 Representative Tom Sawyer of Ohio may have given Census 

Bureau executives yet more reason to consider Continuous 

Measurement with comments he made in a Congressional oversight 

hearing in March 1993. At that time, Sawyer suggested that the 

Census Bureau ought not reject each of the 14 design alternatives 

for fatal flaws but instead ought to combine “building blocks” and 

promising elements from several designs. Alexander’s revised 

design looked as if he drew inspiration from Sawyer’s comments. It 

included use of administrative records as controls for estimates in 

2000 and for further study as their potential use to provide content 

down the road. And, as mentioned previously, the model also 

included the use of sampling for nonresponse follow-up (SNRFU). 

With administrative records and SNRFU, the prototype incorporated 

major elements from at least three of the other design alternatives. 

In reporting the pursuit of Continuous Measurement to Congress, 

Acting Director Scarr showed the impact of Sawyer’s statements. 

He echoed Sawyer noting that Continuous Measurement used 

building blocks from other designs. Moreover, he said it was the 

alternative design that “comes closest to your vision of fundamental 

changes.” House of Representatives Subcommittee on Census 

and Population of the Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, 

Review Of Major Census Bureau Programs in 1993, March 3, 1993, 

p. 2; Susan Miskura, “Forward From 1990: Designing the Census 

2000;” and House of Representatives, Planning for the Census 

2000, October 7, 1993, p.2. 155 CNSTAT, Planning the Decennial Census, May 1993. 156 Sue Miskura to Chip Alexander, Art Cresce, Jim Dinwiddie, and 

Joe Knott, Untitled Memo, June 12, 1993.

ters for the working teams that would further develop 

the results of the JAD from May 1993 (Figure 1). With 

three associate directors (decennial, statistical methods and design, and demographic programs) included 

among its members, the Continuous Measurement 

Design Steering Committee had tremendous power 

within the agency. The committee also benefited 

from its membership including the divisions chiefs 

responsible for field operations, demographic surveys, statistical methods, computer-assisted data 

collection, and design of demographic surveys.157 By 

creating and constituting this committee, the executives were cementing the divisions, their senior staff, 

and their division chiefs to the success or failure of the 

program.

ISSUES OF CONTENT, DATA COLLECTION, 

COST, DATA QUALITY, AND STAKEHOLDERS

Questionnaire Content

As previously noted, Census Bureau executives chose 

continuous measurement as one of two designs to 

test for the 2000 Census because they perceived it 

as a means to reduce the complexity of the decennial 

census by shifting content away from it. The proposal’s creators also hoped it would lead to a product 

with less content than the 1990 long form. Three factors motivated Alexander and his associates in their 

goal to reduce content. First, they shared a desire 

with the authors of the Decade Census Program 

(DCP) of wanting to ask fewer questions of all areas 

to gain the flexibility to ask even more questions of a 

subsample of the population compared to the longform.158 Second, Alexander theorized the new system 

might be able to reduce respondent burden by incorporating data already collected by the current household surveys if the OMB and Congress eventually 

determined that many content items in the household 

surveys were not needed (Table 2).159 Third, by April 

1993, Alexander, like other Census Bureau staffers 

previously mentioned, as well as by Rep. Sawyer, 

157 Robert Tortora to members of the Continuous Measurement 

Design Steering Committee, June 30, 1993. 158 They would accomplish that task by adding “modules” to the 

shorter “base” set of questionnaires nationwide or in selected areas. 

In exchange for providing less data on smaller areas, these modules, 

essentially supplements, would give Continuous Measurement the 

flexibility to deliver more data on larger areas or in a given region. 

Herriot, Bateman, and McCarthy, “The Decade Census Program,” 

and Alexander, “Three General Prototypes,” (CM-1), January 8, 

1993, p. 6. Modules and supplements were still a goal of even the 

participants of the Continuous Measurement Joint Development 

Workshop in May 1993. Cresce, June 9, 1993, p. I–3. 159 Alexander, “Overview for the Technical Committee,” p. 8.
U.S. Census Bureau 79

believed that a reduction in content could boost the 

mail-return rate and thereby reduce costs.160

Alexander backed away from slashing content as 

evidence mounted between 1991 and 1993 that 

data users still needed most, if not all, of the content items. At the same time, the Task Force Policy 

Committee, particularly the federal agencies directly 

represented on it, as well as Census Bureau subject 

matter experts, reviewed legal mandates for census 

questions from fall 1991 to late 1992.161 For much of 

this period, Census Bureau subject-matter experts 

also conducted internal reviews to establish what 

questions were legally mandated. By February 1993, 

the Population Division and Housing and Household 

Economic Statistics Division informed continuous 

measurement planners that federal programs continued to use most of the items on the 1990 long form. 

Alexander concluded from that analysis that continuous measurement would have to collect most of 

the data collected by the 1990 long form and gather 

enough data on those items to produce estimates 

down to the tract or block group level.162 He wrote 

that the most definitive answer on content needs 

would come from the OMB, which, because of its role 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, had responsibility for coordinating all federal data collection and the 

power to approve any agency’s data collection from 

more than ten people.163

In December 1992, shortly before Alexander met with 

the Population Division, the OMB formally requested 

that federal agencies specify their data needs, cite 

the federal laws and regulations requiring the use of 

data from the decennial census, and indicate whether 

continuous measurement could deliver that data to 

them.164 In March and April 1993, as the OMB began 

sharing responses from federal agencies about 

their data needs to the Census Bureau, continuous 

measurement planners still hoped that they could 

eliminate several hard-to-answer questions. These 

included the respondent’s industry and occupation. 

160 Alexander, “A Prototype Design for Continuous 

Measurement,” (CM-7), May 1993, p. 10. 161 Global Report, April 1995, pp. 32–33, 35.

162 Campbell Gibson of the Population Division suggested, 

however, that Alexander did not need to view the internal analysis of 

data requirements as the final word on the subject. Charles H. 

Alexander of DSMD to Susan Miskura, chief 2KS R&D Staff, 

“Preliminary Conclusions About Content Needs for Continuous 

Measurement (DSMD 2KS Doc. #CM-6),” memorandum, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, February 24, 1993, pp. 1–3. 163 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, (P.L. 96-511), 

<www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/house-bill/6410>. 164 Global Report, April 1995, p. 7.

The planners felt that eliminating these questions 

would reduce the Census Bureau’s tabulation costs 

because responses to them had to be coded by 

hand. Planners singled out other items for elimination 

because respondents had trouble recalling the information. These included utility costs and people’s time 

spent commuting to work. As he prepared the April 

1993 prototype, Alexander still hoped these questions 

could be eliminated, simplified, or replaced by the use 

of administrative records to collect the data.165

By May 1993, most federal agencies had reported 

back to the OMB and the Census Bureau that they 

needed data from all the 1990 long-form items, 

most with data down to the tract or block group 

level.166 In this context, members of the Continuous 

Measurement Joint Application Development (JAD) 

Content Group, joined later by the Continuous 

Measurement Content and Data Quality Work Team, 

decided to shelve plans to eliminate any of the 

questions from the 1990 long form on the new ILF 

questionnaire. In addition, the JAD group decided to 

keep them because of the questions’ critical importance to government programs, even in cases where 

use of these data was not mandated by federal 

statute or judicial decisions.167 JAD Content Group 

projected 1993–1998 as the timeframe to complete 

decisions about content for the nationwide launch of 

a Continuous Measurement Survey slated for 1998.168

The JAD Content Group’s timeline proved correct as 

debates on content raged through the mid-1990s. 

The House Appropriations committee expressed 

congressional intent in its 1993–1995 reports 

when it directed the Census Bureau to reduce the 

amount of data it collected. House Appropriations 

Subcommittee chairman Harold Rogers from 

Kentucky went so far as to say that certain questions, 

mandated or not, ought to be cut because he found 

them intrusive to the point they likely drove down 

165 Alexander, “A Prototype Design for Continuous Measurement,” 

(CM-7), May 1993, p. 10. 166 GAO, May 27, 1993, p. 15. 167 Cresce, “Final JAD Report,” pp. 1–3 and pp. 3–13. 168 Even with the federal agencies’ justifications, Continuous 

Measurement planners had to remain prepared for changes in 

content. The GAO’s 1993 response to the OMB’s initial review of 

federal data needs argued that government agencies had made 

similar statements about their need for data before the 1990 

Census. The GAO pointed to its 1986 review of these agencies’ 

prior statements on the legal or programmatic requirements for 

such data. That review had said that the requirements were not 

sufficiently demonstrated. In addition, under the Census Act of 

1954, Congress and the OMB could reserve making final decisions 

regarding subjects and questions to be included until 1 year or so 

before the beginning of the decennial census. Cresce, “Final JAD 

Report,” p. 4-1.
80 U.S. Census Bureau

response rates.169 On the other side of the debate, 

in its final report released in November 1994, the 

CNSTAT Panel filled hundreds of pages detailing 

ongoing data uses by federal agencies, businesses, 

and state and local governments.170 Nonfederal data 

users successfully lobbied the OMB and the Census 

Bureau to survey several thousand data users about 

their needs.171 The Association of Public Data Users 

(APDU) analyzed and published the survey results 

defending what it called “at-risk” data.172 Most of the 

attention from Congress and data users focused on 

the short form and proposed shifts of content from 

the decennial to continuous measurement, but the 

new system’s designers had to be prepared to drop 

or add questions to the ILF as well.

Census Bureau research on long-form questionnaire 

response rates gave supporters of continuous 

measurement more flexibility to accommodate the 

questions that users demanded. By July 1993, Census 

Bureau scientists running the Appeals and Long Form 

Experiment (ALFE) shared their results with Charles 

Alexander and the continuous measurement work 

team. The ALFE demonstrated that even a lengthy 

questionnaire could achieve high response rates 

if it were accompanied by appeals to respondents 

emphasizing, for example, the benefits of the survey 

or the legal requirement to respond. The experiment 

also showed that response rates increased if forms 

were easy to read and if questions for individual 

household members were next to each other on the 

questionnaires.173 Before that experiment, participants 

in the JAD calculated that the Continuous 

Measurement Survey would need to interview more 

households than the 1990 long-form sample, and they 

concluded that the new system would increase the 

169 Tom Jones, “Member Concerns From the Hearing Record,” 

n.d. (around 1995), p. 1. 170 CNSTAT, Modernizing the U.S. Census, November 1994, 

pp. 113–139, 239–341. 171 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Council, April 16, 1993, and Minutes and Recommendations of the 

Census Advisory Council, April 24, 1994. 172 Association of Public Data Users, APDU Year 2000 Content 

Working Group Final Report on Activities, Report I, April 12, 1995. 173 Refer to Robert D. Tortora, Susan M. Miskura, Don A. Dillman, 

“Onward Towards A Census 2000 Design: Research Results,” 

Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings, 1993, Keeley 1993. 

Refer also to James B. Treat, “1993 National Census Test Appeals 

and Long-Form Experiment. Appeals or Short-Form Component: 

Final Report,” DSSD Census 2000 Memorandum Series #E-62, 

U.S. Census Bureau, October 29, 1993; James B. Treat, “1993 

National Census Test Appeals and Long-Form Experiment. LongForm Component: Final Report,” DSSD Census 2000 Memorandum 

Series #E-63, U.S. Census Bureau, November 17, 1993, as referenced 

in Don A. Dillman, Jon R. Clark and James B. Treat, “Influence 

of 13 Design Factors on Completion Rates to Decennial Census 

Questionnaires,” a paper prepared for presentation at the 1994 

Annual Research Conference of the U.S. Census Bureau, 

April 5, 1994.

burden on the average U.S. household. On the upside, 

the JAD participants had theorized that, if they could 

reduce nonresponse rates, they might be able to cut 

the sample size by 20 percent.174 When the ALFE 

results came in, work teams planning the Continuous 

Measurement System raised their expected mailreturn rate estimates for the ILF, and they cut the 

sample size accordingly.175

With the ALFE results in hand and with an eye 

towards meeting federal and nonfederal data users’ 

needs as highlighted in the CNSTAT and APDU 

reports, the Census Bureau planned its Continuous 

Measurement Test to test a 16-page questionnaire. 

The questionnaire heeded the conclusions of the 

ALFE by incorporating respondent-friendly designs 

and understandable skip patterns.176 Furthermore, 

Alexander played up the strengths of the Continuous 

Measurement System for federal and other users 

wanting more content. As the system collected data 

across the years, it could evolve to meet the new 

needs of data users, adding supplements of 5–10 

questions.177

Budget

Members of Congress had mandated research into 

rolling sample surveys as a measure to rein in cost 

increases from the decennial census even as planners 

in the Census Bureau initially thought such surveys 

would boost costs. At a 1992 meeting of the Census 

174 They based this conclusion on assumption that estimates from 

the Continuous Measurement Survey had to match the reliability 

measures of estimates from the 1990 Census sample. Continuous 

measurement would need to sample more households than did 

the 1990 Census, they theorized based on two factors. First, they 

assumed that response rates would be lower for a survey in a setting 

outside of the heightened publicity of the decennial census. Second, 

with continuous measurement’s sample spread over 3–5 years, it did 

not benefit from a finite population correction. Thus, with a larger 

number of households asked the questions, the total burden would 

rise even as the questionnaire length was the same. Cresce, pp. i-4, 

2–6. Refer also to Charles Alexander, “Determination of Sample Size 

of the Intercensal Long Form Sample Survey Prototype,” (Internal 

Census Bureau Report, CM-8), pp. 6, 7. 175 Alexander, “Continuous Measurement Alternative,” pp. 24 and 

17; and Charles H. Alexander, assistant chief for Longitudinal and 

Expenditure Surveys to Barry Edmonston, study director Panel on 

Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, August 24, 

1994, Attachment A, p. 1. 176 In terms of skip patterns, a respondent for whom the follow-up 

question did not pertain would be asked to skip ahead only a few 

inches down the form not several pages ahead. S. Love, D. Dalzell, 

and C. Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey—Operational Plans 

and Issues for Continuous Measurement,” paper presented at the 

1995 Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association was 

published in the 1995 Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research 

Methods of the American Statistical Association Vol. 2, p. 584. 177 Alexander, “Continuous Measurement Alternative,” pp. 

5, 38, and Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement 

System for the U.S. Census of Population and Housing,” (Internal 

Census Bureau Report CM-17), paper presented at the Population 

Association of America, May 5, 1994, pp.14–15.
U.S. Census Bureau 81

Advisory Committee (CAC), Susan Miskura warned 

statisticians and policymakers that over the course 

of a decade, Continuous Measurement costs might 

exceed those incurred by the decennial long form 

it replaced. Still, key members of Congress continued to believe that rolling sample designs would 

save money. Congressman Tom Sawyer and the 

House Appropriations Committee had mandated in 

1992 and 1993 that the Census Bureau study rolling 

samples based on their belief that the public’s low 

response to the long form in 1990 had boosted the 

overall cost of the decennial census.178 Sawyer and 

the Appropriations Committee’s statements that the 

system might cut decennial costs provided a major 

impetus for the Census Bureau to include continuous 

measurement as one of the designs it would study. 

Charles Alexander, the chief statistician planning continuous measurement, would later say that Congress’ 

beliefs about continuous measurement’s potential to 

contain costs helped get the proposal consideration, 

along with its promise to meet the Census Bureau’s 

long-held desire to deliver more timely data.179

In May 1993, when Acting Census Bureau Director 

Harry Scarr unveiled the Census Bureau’s 14 alternative census designs (including continuous measurement) to Congress, he reiterated a prior statement 

that the Census Bureau would judge census redesigns based on their ability to contain costs as one 

of three overarching goals. Scarr, however, hedged 

on the issue during that testimony, saying that steps 

to reduce the differential undercount could come 

into conflict with the cost containment goal. As for 

the Continuous Measurement Design, Scarr said the 

Census Bureau would have a better idea of the cost 

estimates as it developed the prototype.180

178 Census Bureau, Minutes and Recommendations of the Census 

Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, April 24, 1992, 

p. 7; Appropriations Committee Report, September 1992; and 

Sawyer, May 6, 1993. Members of Congress were not alone in this 

train of thought. Census Advisory Committee member Velma 

Montoya in April 1992 said that continuous measurement might 

reduce costs because a short-form only decennial census would not 

require as large of an organization and effort. Montoya was serving 

at that time as one of George H. W. Bush’s appointees to the OSHA 

Review commission and professor of finance at California State 

Polytechnic. 179 Alexander, “Integrating the Continuous Measurement System 

Into Household Surveys,” (CM-19), p. 21, and Charles H. Alexander, 

“A Prototype Continuous Measurement System for the U.S. Census 

of Population and Housing,” (Internal Census Bureau Reports 

CM-17) U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, May 5, 1994, presented 

at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, p. 1. 180 House Subcommittee on Census and Population of the 

Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, Review of Interim 

Report by the National Academy of Sciences on Census Reform, 

May 27, 1993, pp. 28f and 65f.

The differences between Miskura’s and Scarr’s 

statements underscore a debate within the Census 

Bureau over the system’s projected costs. The side 

advocated by Scarr had more support by May 1993. 

The circle around Alexander believed Miskura was 

wrong and that a short-form-only decennial census 

would boost response rates. They also thought that a 

simplified decennial census would benefit from lower 

training costs as enumerators did not need to learn 

about as many questions. Furthermore, local census 

offices could likely close sooner.181

Congressional appropriators reacted negatively 

to Scarr’s lack of specifics, such as assumptions 

on the response rates of the proposed Continuous 

Measurement Survey and how its field and processing costs could be controlled, especially when others 

stepped in with their own figures. In the absence of 

cost estimates for the new system from the Census 

Bureau, the CNSTAT Requirements Panel’s interim 

report served as an initial primary guide when 

presented to the Congressional oversight committee. The report’s principal author, Charles Schultze 

from the Brookings Institution, told Congress that 

while precise cost estimates were not available and 

while continuous measurement would reduce the 

marked increase in costs around the decennial year, 

Herriot’s 1988 work indicated that a Continuous 

Measurement Survey would cost much more than the 

1990 Census.182 The House Appropriations Committee 

reacted strongly to the Census Bureau’s release of 

its design alternative recommendations a few weeks 

later by seeking to cut 65 percent from the Census 

Bureau’s funding request for 2000 Census planning.183 In August 1993, American Demographics 

reported that the committee’s members felt the 

Census Bureau had not presented design recommendations that gave it any clearer sense how the 

181 Taeuber, October 10, 2011. Related discussions also centered 

on developing alternative cheaper options with smaller sample 

sizes. Taeuber, email message to author, October 10, 2011, and 

Navarro, email message to author, September 20, 2011. 182 House Subcommittee, Review of Interim Report, May 27, 1993, 

p. 28f. 183 Some Census Bureau staff expressed the concern that the 

system’s budget might be cut before it had cumulated 5 years of 

data. The House Appropriation Committee’s actions intensified 

these concerns of many staff, who also had memories of 1980s 

budget cuts and staff reductions fresh in their minds. Electronic 

correspondence from Cynthia Taeuber and Campbell Gibson, 

September 2011.
82 U.S. Census Bureau

proposed designs would reduce costs or improve 

census accuracy than it had in 1992.184

Reminded by the GAO how mid-decade census proposals faltered when they failed to demonstrate cost 

savings, Alexander and the continuous measurement 

work teams developed detailed cost estimates; the 

first estimates were not encouraging. A work team 

from the Continuous Measurement-Joint Application 

Development (CM-JAD) Workshop had calculated 

that the Continuous Measurement System would 

need to mail out close to 800,000 questionnaires a 

month if it needed to match the long form’s reliability 

at the census tract level and produce an initial set of 

3-year estimates for 1999–2001. In June 1993, Edward 

Kobilarcik, a statistician from the 2KS Team, put 

the 800,000 questionnaire requirements and other 

assumptions from the CM-JAD through the 2KS cost 

model. He projected the system would cost $116 million a year. He also calculated that the savings from 

dropping the long form in 2000 would pay for only 

about 2.25 years of continuous measurement, potentially validating critics.185

As the high-cost estimates began circulating among 

staff working on continuous measurement and the 

executives overseeing it, Associate Director for 

Demographic Programs Bill Butz advised members of the Steering Committee that, if they were 

184 Linda Jacobsen, “Census Budget Slashed 65 Percent,” 

American Demographics, August 1993, Vol. 15 Issue 8, p. 10. In 

addition, despite Harry Scarr telling a Congressional hearing 

in March 1993 that the overarching goal in designing the 2000 

Census was reducing the undercount and containing costs, the 

Census Bureau’s initial Federal Register notice had not ranked 

containing costs among the mandatory criteria by which said 

it would evaluate alternative census designs. Representative 

Sawyer responded by submitting official comments saying, 

“reduction of the differential undercount and containment of cost 

should be the two most important goals” for the next census. 

Harry Scarr’s Written Responses to Questions submitted by 

Congressman Albert Wynn (MD), March 2, 1993, included in House 

Subcommittee on Census and Population, House Subcommittee on 

Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel of the Committee of Post 

Office and Civil Service, Hearings, Review of Major Census Bureau 

Programs in 1993, March 2, 1993, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1993, and 

Representative Thomas C. Sawyer, chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel to Harry A. Scarr, 

acting director of the U.S. Census Bureau, April 9, 1993, on official 

subcommittee stationery, p. 2. 185 Ed Kobilarcik to Members of the Continuous Measurement 

Design Steering Committee and Workshop Participants, “A First 

Look at Continuous Measurement Costs,” memorandum, July 12, 

1993. To project the costs of Continuous Measurement, Kobilarcik 

was instructed to assume the following: a response rate of 50 

percent on the mailed questionnaires, 15 percent of returned 

questionnaires would require follow-up for missing content or 

coverage, telephone interviewers would follow up with 100 percent 

of households not responding by mail, personal visit follow-up with 

a subsample of households missed by mail and telephone. Planners 

working on Continuous Measurement also had Kobilarcik project 

costs for personal visit interviewers working to update the master 

address file in blocks where they were conducting an interview.

going to present several options, they should not 

deliver this most expensive option first.186 Along 

those lines, through the late summer and fall of 1993, 

the Continuous Measurement Steering Committee 

requested Kobilarcik to run a gamut of cost models 

based on high-, middle-, and low-range assumptions 

for key variables such as response rates and rates for 

the availability of telephone numbers. In addition, he 

ran the numbers for cost projections, in which the 

Continuous Measurement System would produce 

5-year estimates from a reduced mail-out of 500,000 

questionnaires.

Census Bureau staff also moved forward with contemplating even less costly proposals. As part of the 

CM-JAD, Alfredo Navarro, a mathematical statistician 

from the Decennial Statistical Studies Division, had 

been assigned to work through the statistical underpinnings. He examined the claim that the Continuous 

Measurement System could produce estimates of 

comparable quality with a reduced sample size if its 

weighted non-response rate was half that of the 1990 

Census long form. 187 For its part, the Continuous 

Measurement Team (CMT) requested Kobilarcik 

develop cost estimates for scenarios where the system would not oversample small governmental units 

(SGUs), and where the sample size was reduced to 64 

percent of the figure after the oversample had been 

taken out. These changes would result in a mailout 

of 250,000 questionnaires a month.188 According to 

Navarro’s calculations, estimates from this reduced 

sample would be only slightly less reliable than 

comparable estimates from the 1990 long form. That 

is, for a characteristic shared by 10 percent of the 

population of an average-sized census tract, the coefficient of variation (CV) of an estimate would increase 

186 “Summary of 7/8/93 Meeting Continuous Measurement 

Steering Committee,” Attachment C of Robert Tortora to 

Continuous Measurement Steering Committee, “Materials for 

August 4 Workshop,” memorandum, August 2, 1993, p. 2. 187 Art Cresce, “Report of the Continuous Measurement Joint 

Application Workshop Conducted May 24, 25, and 28,” June 9, 

1993, Chapter 1, p. 11. The exact wording from the CM-JAD report 

was as follows: “An improvement in response rates cuts into the 

sample size requirement.” And “If ILF [the Intercensal Long Form 

of the Continuous Measurement System] cut the (weighted) longform non-response rate in half (from 15 percent to 7 percent), 

we would be able to reduce the sample size by 20% to give 

data of a ‘comparable’ quality (provided this can be supported 

theoretically),” Chapter 1, p. 11. 188 Cresce, “Report of the Continuous Measurement Joint 

Application Workshop Conducted May 24, 25, and 28,” June 9, 

1993, Chapter 1, p. 11. Paula Schneider confirmed that the Census 

Bureau was considering dropping the oversampling of SGUs. Paula 

Schneider, October 27, 2011.
U.S. Census Bureau 83

by 25 percent from the same figure for the census 

long form.189

For his part, Alexander argued that for many uses, the 

timeliness of the Continuous Measurement System’s 

data and improvements over the decennial long form 

in terms of nonsampling error made the proposed 

system’s data better in terms of overall error (or mean 

squared error, MSE) than what the decennial sample 

survey offered.190 With Congress angered over a lack 

of savings, Kobilarcik and Navarro’s projects became 

vital to the success of continuous measurement, but 

first the situation became even bleaker.

In September 1993, the Continuous Measurement 

Team presented the Census Advisory Committee with 

estimates forecasting that conducting Continuous 

Measurement would cost anywhere from $58 million 

to $100 million per year. 191 The GAO picked up the 

$100 million number and submitted testimony to 

Sawyer’s congressional committee that, at that price 

level, data users had valid concerns that continuous 

measurement would not be funded.192 A month after 

the Continuous Measurement Team’s (CMT) presentation, Representative Sawyer gave continuous 

measurement a lifeline in a Congressional hearing. 

In contrast to CMT projections, Sawyer suggested 

that while Continuous Measurement might raise the 

Census Bureau’s data collection costs, the data collected would be timelier and, quite possibly, considerably more abundant.193

After Sawyer’s statement, the Continuous 

Measurement Cost Model Work Team advanced a 

list of other areas in which the system might save the 

Census Bureau money. For example, in May 1994, 

Alexander stated that a MAF updated by continuous 

189 Art Cresce, “Report of the Continuous Measurement Joint 

Application Workshop Conducted May 24, 25, and 28,” June 9, 1993, 

Chapter 1, p. 11. The reports produced on Continuous Measurement 

1993–1994 said of the reliability of estimates that “using 64 percent 

of the basic sampling rate increases coefficients of variation by 25 

percent.” Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM10), October 28, 1993, p. 25. 190 Alexander, ”A Prototype Design For Continuous 

Measurement,” (CM-7), n.d. but circulated by April 1993, p. 12. 191 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 25. 192 Statement of L. Nye Stevens, director, Planning and Reporting, 

General Government Division, Decennial Census: Test Design 

Proposals Are Promising, But Fundamental Reform Is Still at Risk 

(GAO/T-GGD-94-12 October 7, 1993, p. 5. 193 Congressman Tom Sawyer, Opening Statement, “Hearing to 

Review the Status of Planning for the Census 2000,” October 7, 

1993, p. 2.

measurement might eliminate the need for address 

canvassing during the 2010 Census.194

In addition to these possible cost savings, results 

of the ALFE enabled Alexander to report cost figures based on more favorable assumptions of 60 

percent mail response rates. Thus, the Continuous 

Measurement Planning Group lowered cost estimates 

by the fall of 1993, and by the beginning of 1994, 

Alexander used figures derived from the mid-range 

scenario to support a $58.5 million-a-year cost estimate. In this scenario the Census Bureau would not 

oversample SGUs, and the sample size would be 64 

percent of his original estimate (Table 4).195

With the reduced costs of the Continuous 

Measurement System in the prototype and with 

statements of costs savings in hand, Alexander and 

Scarr told audiences that under some of the scenarios, continuous measurement might be cost neutral 

in terms of the entire federal statistical system even if 

its data collection was more expensive than the long 

form. That is, in addition to reducing costs from the 

long form, continuous measurement could save the 

Census Bureau money when updating the MAF. Those 

cost savings, when added to the already mentioned 

savings to other federal surveys, might be more 

than the projected cost of running the Continuous 

Measurement System.196

All of the work on cost estimates occurred in the 

context of data users fearing that the Continuous 

Measurement System’s costs would mean it would 

never be implemented. From the beginning, data 

users and federal agencies sponsoring the Census 

194 On this point, Alexander’s expectation proved not to be 

feasible for the 2010 Census. In addition, Continuous Measurement 

might help locate members of rare subpopulations that other 

federal surveys, such as the National Health Interview Survey 

(NHIS), would otherwise spend a great deal of money to locate. 

Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 28, and Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous 

Measurement System,” (CM-17), May 5, 1994, pp. 6 and 14. 195 Charles H. Alexander, Demographic Statistical Methods 

Division (DSMD) to Robert Tortora, associate director, Statistical 

Design Methodology and Standards (SDMS), “Further Exploration 

of Issues Raised at the CNSTAT Requirements Panel Meeting,” 

memorandum, (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-13), U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, January 31, 1994, p. 2, and Charles H. 

Alexander, assistant chief for Longitudinal and Expenditure Surveys 

to Barry Edmonston, study director Panel on Census Requirements 

in the Year 2000 and Beyond, August 24, 1994. 196 U. S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Census, 

Statistics, and Postal Personnel of the Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, Status of Planning for the Census 2000, 

Washington, DC, January 26, 1994, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1994, 

pp. 36, 47, and Charles H. Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous 

Measurement System for the U.S. Census of Population and 

Housing,” (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-17), U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, May 5, 1994, presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the Population Association of America, p. 6.
84 U.S. Census Bureau

Bureau’s current household surveys feared the system’s budget would be cut in the middle of cumulating 5-year data (Tables 3a and 3b) based on similar 

recent events. Most notably, David Crowe, a witness 

representing the Housing Statistics Users Group 

(HSUG), told Congress in 1992 that he worried that 

any new survey or expansion of existing ones would 

suffer the same fate as the Annual Housing Survey. Its 

funding was cut back so severely in the early 1980s 

that it could be administered only biennially and had 

to be renamed the American Housing Survey.197

Alexander responded to data users’ concerns about 

the reliability of funding for the proposed system in 

April 1994, by saying that it would be easier to answer 

such questions once research and testing proved 

its workability and made its cost estimates clearer. 

He also argued to the Census Advisory Committee 

(CAC) that the system’s frequently released data 

products might have an easier time winning 

Congressional budgetary support than would a long 

form producing data once a decade.198 Unmoved 

by Alexander’s argument, the GAO reminded data 

users and the Congressional committee overseeing 

the Census Bureau how Congressional appropriators 

had threatened the Census Bureau’s budget in the 

previous 1993–1994 session.199 Less than a month 

after Alexander’s presentation to the CAC, some 

demographers and statisticians voiced alarm to a 

reporter from the New York Times that replacing 

the long form would mean “taking a valuable datacollection tool from the required once-in-a-decade 

head count, with no guarantee that Congress would 

finance the proposed monthly surveys.” In comments 

to The New York Times, CAC member and director 

of policy studies at the Population Reference Bureau 

Inc., Martha Farnsworth Riche, said that potential 

threat to data products clashed with society’s entry 

into an Information Age in which technology made 

Americans increasingly reliant on information.200

197 As a result of those cuts, the survey was renamed the 

American Housing Survey. House Subcommittee on Census and 

Population of the Committee of Post Office and Civil Service, “20th 

Century Planning: Decennial Questionnaire Content,” hearing, 102nd 

Congress session, October 1, 1992, p. 106. 198 Census Bureau, Minutes and Recommendations of the Census 

Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, April 14–15, 1994, 

p. 22. 199 William Hunt, “Bureau of the Census: Management Issues 

Require Prompt Attention,” GAO T-GGD/AIMD-94-171, June 9, 

1994, p. 1, and House Committee, Making Appropriations for the FY 

Ending September 30, 1993, pp. 66–67. 200 Steven A. Holmes, “Census Officials Plan Big Changes in 

Gathering Data,” New York Times, May 16, 1994.

Data Collection

Changes in proposals for data collection were also 

driven by cost and coverage concerns. These changes 

went beyond Alexander’s aforementioned move from 

the DCP’s proposal of primary collection via telephone to collection via mail. By mid-1993, the team 

shelved initial proposals hypothesizing that the survey could draw data from current surveys—especially 

the CPS—not just because that move might cause 

technical and political problems but also because 

initial cost estimates showed that data collection 

method likely would be more expensive than running 

a separate Continuous Measurement Survey.201 The 

model still projected that, after the current household surveys were redesigned to use the MAF as their 

sampling frame, the Census Bureau could link these 

data to the ILF data and previous census short-form 

data to make synthetic estimates. Linking data might 

also make it possible to reduce the sample size of the 

ILF after 2000 and thereby further reduce the costs 

of the Continuous Measurement System. 202

Because of the high travel costs entailed in the procedure, Alexander and his colleagues shifted their 

thinking on the procedures for collecting data via 

personal visits in sparsely populated areas. Alexander 

had theorized in the first prototype in April 1993 that 

interviewers conducting the personal visit follow-ups 

in such areas might collect data for several months 

of samples at one time. This would allow them to 

pool the subsample personal interviews so that such 

interviews would be clustered.203 The participants of 

the CM-JAD workshop added that American Indian 

and Alaska Native areas might also have intermittent 

clustering of personal interviews.204 In March 1994, 

the Continuous Measurement Planning Group kept 

the subsampling rate in sparsely populated areas at 1 

in 5.205

The initial proposal to eliminate the oversample of 

small governmental units was another change in data 

201 Charles H. Alexander, “Including Current Household Surveys 

in a ‘Cumulated Rolling Sample’ Design” (Internal Census Bureau 

Reports CM-5), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, n.d., p. 14. 202 Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” 

(CM-17), May 5, 1994, pp. 4 and 13. 203 Alexander, “A Prototype Design,” p. 6. 204 Cresce, “Final Version of JAD Report,” August 31, 1993,

 Chapter 1, p. 2. 205 Charles H. Alexander and S. I. Wetrogan, “Small Area 

Estimation With Continuous Measurement: What We Have and What 

We Want,” (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-14), U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, paper to Appear in the Proceedings of the 

1994 Census Bureau Annual Research Conference, March 22, 1994, 

p. 16. The American Community Survey eventually did adopt the use 

of clustering interviews in Remote Alaska areas where travel costs 

are high and in certain types of group quarters.
U.S. Census Bureau 85

Table 3a.

Proposals on the Continuous Measurement System for CM 10, 11, and 12: 1993–1994

Proposal Title 

(Abbreviated) A Continuous Measurement Alternative (CM-10)

Overview of Research 

on the Continuous 

Measurement 

Alternative (CM-11)

Progress on 

Continuous 

Measurement 

Prototype

 (CM-12)

Proposed by C. Alexander C. Alexander C. Alexander

Date 10/28/1993 8/10/1993 3/15/1994

Audience receiving the 

report or statement

Unknown Joint Statistical 

Meetings

Unknown

Components of the 

proposed system

Refer to CM-7:

1. Continuous Improvement Frame (of MAF) (CIF).

2. Intercensal Long Form (ILF) survey for tracts or 

BNAs

3. Integrated Estimates. Program (IEP)—an ongoing 

effort to integrate data from current surveys, the 

ILF and administrative records to create updated 

estimates for small areas to use as controls.

4. General Purpose Frame (GPF) to be used by all 

current surveys.

5. Drastic reduction of 2000 Census content to be 

replaced with ILF.

The IEP might eventually lead to cheaper ways to 

produce the ILF data.

Whole paper is a 

condensed version of 

CM-10, sample from a 

continuously updated 

MAF, ILF, IEP—in the 

future the Census 

Bureau would link the 

ILF and household 

survey data to the 

MAF to make small 

area estimates with a 

smaller ILF survey.

MAF, ILF, Program of 

Integrated Estimates 

(PIE)—a R&D project 

would determine if 

after 2000 the Census 

Bureau could use the 

household surveys 

and ILF to make 

estimates. 

Sample size • 500,000/mo mailout 2002–2012 (effective 

sampling rate .173 over 5 years).

• 800,000/mo mailouts for 1999–2001.

• Would explore reducing the sample size as well 

(eliminate the oversample of small govt. units 

(SGUs), and reduce basic rate by 64 percent). 

 500,000/mo mailout 

(but would consider 

taking out the SGU 

oversampling and 

reducing the sample 

by 64 percent). 

 250,000/mo, 

<400,000/mo for 

1999-2001. 

Size of areas for which 

annual estimates 

would be provided

250,000+ 250,000+ 250,000+

Size of areas for which 

5-yr estimates would 

be provided

Under 250,000. NA Under 250,000.

Oversampling Y/N 

details

Possibly. If it oversampled small govt. units even more 

than did the 1990 long form, the CV would still be 

1.10 X 1990; if no oversample, CV = 2.6 X 1990; if 64 

percent, CV = 3.3 X 1990.

Oversample small 

govt. units.

NA

Reliability of data 

(most often 

expressed in terms 

of the coefficient of 

variation (CV))

The full sample would match the long form’s 10 

percent CV for a characteristic of 10 percent of the 

population at the tract level. A sample reduced to 64 

percent of that “full” size would produce a 25 percent 

higher CV than what the 1990 long form did.

A 64 percent sample 

would produce a 25 

percent higher CV 

than what the 1990 

long form did.

25 percent greater 

than 1990 LF.

Projected start of full 

implementation

1999 1998 1999

Relationship to CPS, 

other household 

surveys

CM would replace portions of them. From CM-5 onward 

determined that 

simply expanding 

household surveys 

would not work and 

the cost effectiveness 

of combining parts 

was small.

Greater integration 

after 2000, CM might 

replace portions of 

the NHIS sample, 

could not replace CPS 

except the PIE might 

be used in place 

of CPS population 

estimates. 

Cost estimates for the 

proposed system

$58-$100M/yr ($580-1000M for 2003-2012) might 

pay for itself thru savings—no long form in 2000 

($300M) address list savings in 2010 ($100M) and 

savings to household surveys.

NA, said would need 

to make decisions on 

2KS cost model.

$43–73M/yr ($580M 

±150 for 2003–2012) 

but savings of 

$4–$64M/yr. ($340M 

±100–300). 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
86 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3b.

Proposals on the Continuous Measurement System for CM 13, 17, and 20: 1994–1995

Proposal Title 

(Abbreviated)

Responding to CNSTAT 

Meeting (CM-13)

A Prototype Continuous Measurement 

System (CM-17)

Continuous Measurement 

and the Statistical System 

(CM-20)

Proposed by C. Alexander C. Alexander C. Alexander

Date 1/31/1994 5/5/1994 5/23/1995

Audience receiving the 

report or statement

Committee of National 

Statistics (CNSTAT), Census 

Bureau R&D experts, and 

the assoc. dir. for Statistical 

Methods.

Annual Meeting of the Population 

Association of America April 1994.

Annual Labor Market 

Information Conference. 

Components of the 

proposed system

NA • A sampling frame based on MAF with 

field operations to update it.

• ILF.

• Program of Integrated Estimates (PIE) 

use data from ILF, household surveys, 

AdRecs to create synthetic small area 

estimates that would be good for 

poverty, income, and housing quality 

estimates.

MAF, CM survey, 

supplement surveys, PIE.

Sample size 250,000/mo. (233K mailout) 

(taking out the oversampling 

had reduced the sample to 

402,000, 64 percent of that 

was 257,000).

250,000/mo. mailout (resulting in 

approximately 200,000 interviews/mo.)

400,000/mo mailout for 1999–2001.

250,000/mo. mailout

400,000/mo. mailout for 

1999-2001.

Size of areas for which 

annual estimates would 

be provided

 NA NA 250,000

Size of areas for which 

5-yr estimates would 

be provided

 NA Small areas and small domains. All.

Oversampling Y/N 

details

Planned to drop oversampling 

of small govt. units unless 

users proved need.

No, planned for same rate for all places 

might modify if 2000 Census content 

determination process established that it 

was needed, or might send more mail to 

poor response areas or higher personal 

visit follow-up there.

Yes, for areas under 2,500 

in population.

Reliability of Data 

(most often expressed 

in terms of the 

coefficient of variation 

(CV))

25 percent higher CV than 

1990 LF, but the reduction 

in bias meant that the mean 

square error (MSE) for 

continuous measurement was 

better than that of the long 

form.

25 percent greater than 1990 LF (in 

part because sampling nonresponse 

follow-up would mean reaching 12.0M vs 

14.5M for 1990 LF), loss of precision for 

group quarters and vacant units.

25 percent greater than 

1990 LF.

Projected start of full 

implementation

NA 1999 1999

Relationship to CPS, 

other household 

surveys

NA PIE: after 2000, all these surveys use 

MAF for samples, the PIE would help 

improve substate estimates for the CPS, 

where the CM survey revealed members 

of rare populations lists of those units 

could be given to other agencies doing 

surveys for them to use as a screen.

CPS from CM survey 

sample, other add on 

survey questionnaires being 

worked out with other 

statistical agencies.

Cost estimates for the 

proposed system

$59.5M/yr. with some other 

savings on address list.

No direct cost estimates but said, “Some 

preliminary calculations for design 

purposes did suggest that, for the 

prototype sample size, there is some 

chance that the savings produced by 

CM over the entire federal system could 

equal or exceed the cost of the CM 

operation.”

NA

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau 87

collection spurred by cost concerns. Paula Schneider, 

then head of the Field Division, pointed out to the 

Continuous Measurement Steering Committee that 

such oversampling was no longer necessary. It was 

added the 1980 Census would provide more reliable 

income figures to meet the needs of the General 

Revenue Sharing Act. But with the act no longer in 

effect, that requirement for oversampling had disappeared even if new uses for its data had emerged.206

Alexander and his colleagues deviated from cost concerns when it came to implementing data collection 

measures to offset coverage limitations, including 

differential undercoverage. The CM-JAD participants 

recommended mailing a Spanish-language questionnaire (something the 1990 Census had not done).207

They suggested that the system would increase 

sampling rates in areas it found to have higher 

nonresponse rates.208

Nonresponse Followup Operation (NRFU) and 

Coverage

Proponents of continuous measurement pitched the 

system’s uses of technology and new procedures 

to address nonresponse, item nonresponse, and to 

improve survey coverage. The proposal depended 

on a continuously updated MAF to mitigate some of 

the effect where surveys were known to have higher 

undercoverage than did the census. A continuously 

updated MAF would help improve the accuracy of 

continuous measurement’s sampling frame. The 

authors of later proposals added extra field listing 

operations and used the newly built Emergency 911 

systems in areas with many noncity style addresses 

to improve coverage by ensuring against addresses 

missing from a MAF updated initially by the USPS 

Delivery Service File.209

Continuous measurement’s use of subsampling and of 

experienced permanent field representatives would 

likely improve on data quality by adjusting for item 

nonresponse. In October 1993, Alexander still thought 

that continuous measurement would have similar 

item nonresponse rates to those of the 1990 Census 

206 Cresce, “Final Version of JAD Report,” August 31, 1993, 

Chapter 1, p. 2, and Chapter 1, p. 8; and Art Cresce, “Meeting Data 

Needs in a Continuous Measurement Environment,” paper delivered 

to the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, 

May 5–7, 1994, p. 9. 207 Cresce, “Final Version of JAD Report,” pp. 1–10. 208 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 10. Refer to Chapter 4 for when this procedure 

was adopted as part of the ACS. 209 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 6.

long form, but its staff of interviewers would have 

more opportunity to reinterview households because 

they were only going to a subsample of them. Also, 

permanent field staff would have more training than 

the 1990 Census army of temporary census takers. 

This training would help them improve the quality 

of the data they collected. At that time, Alexander’s 

reports did not go into details.210 However, Paula 

Schneider (who then served as the head of field 

operations at the Census Bureau and was actively 

involved in continuous measurement) recalled that “a 

lot of enumerators did not like to ask questions such 

as income.”211 The Census Bureau would have greater 

ability to implement quality control over the work of 

continuous measurement’s experienced interviewers 

than it did during the huge operation involved in the 

decennial census.212 Experienced interviewers would 

also likely have more success encouraging respondents to answer such questions.213

By the time they were formulating operational 

plans for the 1995 test, staff from the Continuous 

Measurement Staff said they would research the 

effect of changing residence rules on undercoverage. 

Post-Enumeration Survey research had shown that 

about one-third of the undercoverage of Hispanic 

and Asian Americans came from people missed 

within households and that people responding to 

census or survey questions were confused frequently 

about whom they should include as a member of the 

household.214 The Census Bureau had formed a formal 

office to work on continuous measurement by April 

1994 called the Continuous Measurement Staff Office 

(CMSO),215 and by 1995, it picked up research on 

residence rules. The CMSO staff decided to test their 

conclusion that a simpler set of instructions would 

210 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 38. 211 Schneider, interview with author, October 27, 2011.

212 Alexander, “Overview of Research on the Continuous 

Measurement Alternative,” August 1993, p. 2. 213 Keith Rust, a statistician working for Westat, told an audience 

at the Joint Statistical Meetings in 1994 about another potential 

benefit of a Continuous Measurement System in terms of coverage. 

Maintaining a “continuous presence in local areas over the decade 

[would] enable those concerned with response and coverage 

improvement to conduct more effective outreach programs and 

improve public response to the census,” he said. Rust, “Continuous 

Measurement Alternatives to Census Data Collection,” 1994 JSM 

Proceedings, p. 85. 214 Elizabeth A. Martin and Deborah H. Griffin, “The Role Of 

Questionnaire Design In Reducing Census Coverage Error,” paper 

presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, 1994. 215 When the Census Bureau created an office to develop 

continuous measurement early in 1994, its name in the first few 

months was the Continuous Measurement Development Staff 

(CMDS), then Continuous Measurement Staff, and later the 

Continuous Measurement Office. For the sake of clarity this chapter 

refers to that office only under the name Continuous Measurement 

Staff Office (CMSO).
88 U.S. Census Bureau

help offset the missed persons within the household 

that drove up the differential undercount. The CMSO 

staff did not say it in their statements of operational 

plans, but simpler rules would help respondents with 

limited English proficiency and improve the count.216

Other plans for nonresponse follow-up awaited 

further research. In 1995, the CMSO staff’s operational 

plans stated they needed more research to see if 

computer-assisted telephone interviews (CATI) as 

the first form of NRFU would alter response rates by 

delaying personal visits to households. The Census 

Bureau, likewise, had not decided whether to do 

mail follow-ups on addresses where the U.S. Postal 

Service “failure to deliver” system indicated that 

the unit might be vacant. Additionally, the agency 

had not yet decided what portion of those units it 

would have field representatives visit to verify if they 

were actually vacant. In addition, the agency would 

await cost information and 1996 test results. The 

Continuous Measurement Staff also had not decided 

yet how to use MAF updates and field representatives’ 

observations to offset errors due to nonresponse of 

individuals or households that were not interviewed 

during data collection.217

Data Quality

Right up to 1995, continuous measurement’s proponents compared and contrasted the strengths and 

weaknesses of its ongoing collection process with the 

decennial long form’s single point in time collection 

process in terms of the data quality. The CM-JAD 

earlier had identified the advantages of the proposed 

system in terms of data quality as: 

Permanent Staff With Long-Term Training: By virtue 

of being permanent, the interviewers would receive 

continuous training over time and therefore would be 

likely to make fewer mistakes interpreting questions 

and respondents’ answers than would the army of 

temporary staff hired for the decennial census.218

216 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, “Constructing a Major 

Survey,” 1995, p. 7. Such plans likely were influenced by this 

paper by Elizabeth A. Martin and Deborah H. Griffin, “The Role Of 

Questionnaire Design In Reducing Census Coverage Error,” paper 

presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, 1994. 217 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey,” 

1995. Stakeholders’ increasingly serious challenges to these early 

plans after 1994 will be covered in the section of this chapter titled 

“Challenges to Continuous Measurement’s Theorized Effect on 

Coverage Rates.” 218 Cresce, “Final Version of JAD Report,” (CM-9), 1993, p. 12. 

Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” (CM-17), 

May 5, 1994, p. 4, and Center for the Study of Social Policy, “Making 

Decisions Count: How the Census Bureau’s New Survey Could 

Transform Government,” October 31, 1995, p. 16.

Continual Improvement: Unlike the decennial census, 

continuous measurement would be able to identify 

and correct problems with questions midstream such 

as where respondents were misunderstanding what a 

question was asking.219

Even Out Seasonal Effects: Having a reference date 

tied to the date of the interview rather than to a single reference date would even out discrepancies such 

as temporary residents of resort areas and statistics 

on industries such as agriculture where April is not a 

representative month for labor.220

Data collected by continuous measurements had the 

following disadvantages compared with the decennial long form: 

• Residency: Respondents might have confusion 

over residence rules, and some people could be 

counted as part-year residents of more than one 

address.221

• Even Out Seasonal Effects: A reference date of 

April 1 would actually give more representative 

data for the year about school attendance than 

would the floating reference date.222

• Recall and Income: Because of its proximity to tax 

day, respondents had better recall of income and 

its components around April 1. Members of the 

CM-JAD were concerned with respondents especially in November or December trying to recall 

income from the previous calendar year.223

By May 1995, the CM staff leaned strongly towards 

asking respondents about their income “over the previous 12 months.”224

From 1993 to early 1995, planners working on continuous measurement were undecided about residence 

rules. Should they ask where the occupants of the 

housing unit usually resided during the year as did 

the census? Or should they ask where occupants 

219 Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” 

(CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 7. 220 Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” 

(CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 7. 221 Alexander, Continuous Measurement and the Statistical 

System (CM-20), May 23, 1995, p. 5. 222 Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement 

System,” (CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 7, and Alexander, “A Continuous 

Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), October 28, 1993, p. 18. 223 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 35. 224 By 1994, members of the CM Staff were already saying that 

5-year moving averages would be adjusted for inflation. Alexander, 

“A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), October 28, 

1993, p. 35, and Alexander, “Continuous Measurement and the 

Statistical System,” (CM-20), May 23, 1995, p. 5.
U.S. Census Bureau 89

lived “as of today?”225 By August 1995, planners 

decided that the 1996 continuous measurement test 

would ask respondents about people in the housing 

unit present at the time of the interview as long as 

they had lived or expected to live there for more than 

2 months. With this wording they hoped continuous 

measurement would identify residents that lacked a 

usual residence, thereby improving within household 

coverage. They hoped as well that this wording would 

even out the effect of seasonal fluctuations and people counted more than once.226

Data Products

Proposed data products from continuous 

measurement from 1993 to 1995 remained largely 

static in terms of the size of areas for which they 

would disseminate estimates, but they evolved 

as the new Continuous Measurement Staff began 

exploring operational procedures. Until the CM-JAD, 

Alexander’s prototypes had not defined the size of 

areas for which the Census Bureau would release 

annual or multiyear estimates. He did say that the 

Continuous Measurement System might produce 

monthly or quarterly estimates for the nation as a 

whole, but that the estimates would have a time lag 

of several months.227 In addition, the Census Bureau 

could prepare estimates for users on nonstandard 

geographic areas such as traffic analysis zones 

(TAZs), local planning zones, and user-defined 

areas so long as they were defined as a set of 

census blocks. It also could prepare estimates for 

Congressional districts. Participants in the CM-JAD 

agreed with Alexander on the feasibility of such 

tabulations but did not specify if such estimates 

would be created as special tabulations for users 

or something users could generate through data 

downloads.228 After August 1993, the prototype that 

the CM-JAD group settled on included a Continuous 

225 Alexander, “A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), 

October 28, 1993, p. 36, and Alexander, “Continuous Measurement 

and the Statistical System,” (CM-20), May 23, 1995, p. 5. 226 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, p. 8f. 227 Alexander, “Overview of Continuous Measurement for 

the Technical Committee,” (CM-4), February 16, 1993, p. 4, and 

Alexander, “A Prototype Design for Continuous Measurement,” 

(CM-7), May 1993, p. 6. 228 Alexander’s had said that user defined areas would be 

possible only if they were sets of “block groups” in his April 1993 

general prototype, whereas the CM-JAD Content Group revised the 

statement to say sets of census blocks. Alexander, “A Prototype 

Design for Continuous Measurement,” (CM-7), May 1993, p. 9, and 

Cresce, “Final Version of JAD Report,” (CM-9), 1993, p. 3-3. CM-JAD 

participants said that the Census Bureau would need to advise users 

of the reliability figures for such estimates and that they would 

need further testing to determine if the system could handle areas 

that involved splitting a census block. Cresce, “Final Version of JAD 

Report,” (CM-9), 1993, pp. 3-8.

Measurement System that would produce annual 

estimates for states and areas with populations 

greater than 250,000. It also would produce 5-year 

moving averages as estimates for the population 

characteristics for census tracts and block groups. 

Along with the annual estimates, the Census Bureau 

would update these 5-year averages yearly.229 That is, 

for example, it would release 5-year estimates for all 

areas for 2002–2006 and the next year a new set of 

5-year estimates for 2003–2007.

Members of the new CMSO were very forward-looking 

in how they envisioned disseminating data products 

to users through the still nascent World Wide Web. 

They said the system might be able to disseminate 

data and estimates over the internet in as little as 6 

months after it was collected.230 The precise balance 

of how much data still had to be released via printed 

reports and CD-ROM remained up in the air versus 

what would be available online. Alexander and Arthur 

Cresce from the 2KS hoped electronic dissemination 

would speed data release, allow users greater ability to customize tables, and save the Census Bureau 

printing costs.231

Alexander apprised the demographers, statisticians, 

and marketers at the Population Association of 

America in May 1994 of a massive expansion in data 

the Census Bureau would make available because 

of the Continuous Measurement System. In addition 

to the annual and multiyear estimates, he said that 

the Continuous Measurement System might be able 

to provide users with detailed general purpose files 

within 6 months of collecting the data. The general goal was to produce files with data that users 

could cumulate to meet their needs. The Continuous 

Measurement Staff were exploring possible data 

releases that would include monthly tallies by census 

block or block group for each month. A second possible data release was a Public Use Microdata Sample 

(PUMS) file with individual household data where the 

personally identifiable information and detailed geographic information were suppressed.232

Alexander’s colleague, Art Cresce was a bit more 

circumspect when speaking to the May 1994 meeting 

of the PAA. He agreed that the Census Bureau would 

229 Alexander, “Overview of Research on the Continuous 

Measurement Alternative,” (CM-11) August 10, 1993, pp. 487–488. 230 Cresce, “Meeting Data Needs,” May 1994, p. 13, and Alexander, 

“Continuous Measurement and the Statistical System,” (CM-20), 

May 23, 1995, p. 5. 231 Cresce, “Meeting Data Needs,” May 1994, p. 11. 232 Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” 

(CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 5. 
90 U.S. Census Bureau

be able to speed up data publication because survey 

data would be coming in each month and the agency 

could work on disclosure avoidance on the records 

on a flow basis. Cresce, however, cautioned that the 

effort required to process and code so many records 

so quickly was unprecedented. The Census Bureau 

was already doing similarly quick turnaround processing in the CPS and the Current Industrial Reports, 

but these operations were nowhere near the size 

of the proposed Continuous Measurement System. 

Cresce said that the new system could probably publish microdata files Alexander mentioned, but it would 

need size-area restrictions like those for the decennial 

census to protect households’ privacy. Some users 

would want snapshots of how areas were changing by looking at characteristics month to month. 

Cresce warned that such estimates would not be 

reliable below the state level and, more importantly, 

would increase the risk of disclosure. The system 

would produce those monthly estimates, but it would 

release them on a quarterly basis only. The CMSO 

would have to prioritize addressing the procedures 

the new system would employ to protect households’ 

confidentiality.233

Given the daunting nature of producing and ensuring the confidentiality of such a large volume of 

tabulations each month, it is not surprising that the 

CMSO scaled back their scope. By 1995, as they were 

gearing up for the field test of the monthly survey, 

the staff had opted to limit the proposed special tabulations for users, which were planning to be annual 

summary tabulations available only down to the census block group level.234

As Cresce pointed out to the PAA in 1994, the CMSO 

also would need to explore the ability of the system to make estimates for small populations, such 

as Samoans or Hmong, by adjusting data collection 

methods. As a possible solution, he recommended 

oversampling in areas of known concentrations of 

such groups. Cresce added that this method might 

allow the system to reduce the variance in estimates 

of characteristics for smaller population groups and 

233 Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” 

(CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 14. 234 Alexander told the audience at the Labor Market Information 

Conference that “Annual summary tabulations for areas down to 

block group will be available for use in time-series or regression 

models, but these individual estimates are based on too small 

a sample to be reliable as a stand-alone estimate.” Alexander, 

Continuous Measurement and the Statistical System (CM-20), May 23, 

1995, p. 4–5.

subgroups of larger populations, also known by the 

statistical term “small domains.”235

Census Bureau Involvement of Stakeholders and 

Their Concerns About Continuous Measurement

The Census Bureau strongly encouraged stakeholder 

participation, beginning with the early planning of 

the 2000 Census in 1990, and through the agency’s 

plans to test continuous measurement in 1995. The 

system’s promise to increase the frequency of data 

products did win over powerful allies, such as some 

transportation planners and some members of the 

PAA. However, for data users, especially nonfederal 

ones, concerns mounted from early 1993 to late 1995 

(Table 4). Two forces heightened those concerns. One 

was the fear that the new system would not or could 

not deliver small-area data, whether by design or by 

budget slashing. The second was borne of frustration 

among nonfederal users that the census planners 

were not consulting them about their data needs.

The OMB and Congress told the Census Bureau 

to work on a system that would give primary 

consideration to federally-mandated data and federal 

uses of data. The Census Bureau also was analyzing 

the needs of nonfederal users for data, but it lacked 

the budget to tell many nonfederal users it was taking 

their needs into account. Until mid-1994, the Census 

Bureau was constrained in talking only to those 

nonfederal users who were members of the CAC and 

members of the 2KS. The Census Bureau’s public 

statements before 1994 responded to the desires for 

federal data by Congress and the OMB. The lack of 

many statements on other data users led nonfederal 

users to conclude that the Census Bureau was 

ignoring their needs.

Some of this distrust grew from a time lag in communications. Both federal and nonfederal data users 

participated in the first focus group, brainstorming 

components of alternative design recommendations 

held with CACs of both the professional associations and the Race and Ethnic Advisory Committees. 

Nonfederal users submitted their suggestions on data 

collection methods in those meetings.236 (Table 4).

In addition, leaders from local governments, along 

with members of Congress, had been among the 

first participants in census planning to suggest that 

235 Cresce, “Meeting Data Needs,” May 1994. This method of 

oversampling was not implemented for cost reasons and for how 

complicated it would be for field operations. Taeuber, October 10, 

2011, and Paula J. Schneider, interview with author, October 27, 2011. 236 Minutes of CAC, 1991.
U.S. Census Bureau 91

Table 4.

Stakeholders in the Census Planning Process

Committee Relationship of Stakeholder to the Census Bureau Relationship to Other Stakeholders

Congressional Oversight 

Committee

• Approves decennial census plan.

• Approves census pretests.

• Clears initial legislative changes affecting census operations.

• Advises and lobbies other members of Congress on support 

for legislation to approve census plans.

• Informs data users of the political climate and likely 

Congressional actions.

Congressional 

Appropriations 

Committee

Approves or modifies budget requests down to line items on operations, research, and salaries.

• Clears initial budget legislation.

• Advises and lobbies other members of Congress on support 

for legislation to fund census and other agency’s statistical 

activities.

• Informs data users of the political climate and likely 

Congressional actions.

Senate Oversight 

Committee

• Approves decennial census plan.

• Approves census pretests.

• Confirms Census Bureau director and political appointees.

Advises and lobbies other members of Congress on support 

for legislation to approve census plans.

Task Force on the Year 

2000 Census Advisory 

Committee

Officially develops plan for the 2000 Census. • Develops Census 2000 plan for the Commerce Department.

• Approves recommendations and work of other Task Force 

committees.

Task Force on the Year 

2000 Census Technical 

Committee

Advises Census Bureau planners and executives on the feasibility of 

proposed methods of data collection, processing, and dissemination.

• Advises Task Force Advisory Committee.

• Advises Commerce Department.

Task Force on the Year 

2000 Census Policy 

Committee

Advises Census Bureau planners and executives on the legal and 

political ramifications of proposed plans and the likelihood of their 

approval.

• Informs Congressional staff.

• Informs federal agencies.

• Inform and advise OMB.

Department of Commerce Directs and oversees Census Bureau activities, modifies and submits 

Census Bureau’s budget request before submitting it to the OMB.

Presents budget to Congress and OMB.

General Accounting 

Office (GAO, later 

renamed Government 

Accountability Office)

• Advises Census Bureau on its plans and financial management.

• Audits its activities.

• Recommends Congressional fiscal and legislative actions.

• Advises Congress on Census Bureau plans and financial 

management.

• Performs audits for Congress.

CNSTAT Panel on 

Requirements

Evaluates the feasibility and appropriateness of requests for data 

collection and of design proposals ability to collect that data.

Reports on its findings on census designs.

CNSTAT Panel on 

Alternative Methods

Evaluates the feasibility and appropriateness of requests for data 

collection and of design proposals ability to collect that data.

Reports on its findings on census designs.

Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB)

Approves questionnaires, approves census pretests, coordinates data 

needs of federal agencies, monitors questionnaires for the burden 

they place on respondents, audits budgets and operations.

Modifies Commerce Dept’s budget request, advises Congress 

on budget requests, approves of federal agencies’ data 

collection.

Census Advisory 

Committee of 

Professional Associations 

(CAC)

• Advises the Census Bureau on the technical feasibility of proposed 

plans.

• Advises the Census Bureau on data users’ concerns.

• Informs the Census Bureau of statistical methods used outside the 

agency.

Mobilizes data users in support of plans

advises Congress.

Racial and Ethnic Advisory 

Committees (REAC)

• Advises on boosting response in their communities and recruiting 

census takers.

• Informs the Census Bureau on sources of undercount and coverage 

errors, methods to improve coverage within households.

• Mobilizes data users in support of plans.

• Advises Congress.

Federal Agencies With 

Legally Mandated 

Use of Census Data or 

Sponsorship of Current 

Surveys

• Pay for and approve of surveys.

• Advise Census Bureau of new statistical methods.

• Compete for statistical activities.

• Compete for limited budget resources.

Advise Congress and OMB how Census Bureau plans affect 

their work.

State and Local 

Government Data Users

• Pay for some specialized data collection.

• Advise Census Bureau of new statistical methods.

• Advise Census Bureau on data uses.

Lobby Congress.

Business Data Users • Advise Census Bureau on data uses.

• Pay for a number of special tabulations.

Lobby Congress.

State Data Centers Advise Census Bureau on data uses. Inform data users of proposed changes.

Note: Rep. Tom Sawyer (D-WI) chaired the subcommittee from the 101st to 103rd Congress (1989–1994). Rep. William Zeliff (R-NH) chaired the subcommittee 104th 

Congress (1995–1996) with authority over the Census Bureau, the subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
92 U.S. Census Bureau

the Census Bureau use rolling sample surveys as 

an alternative means of collecting decennial data. 

More importantly, stakeholders played key roles in 

the bodies created to advise the Census Bureau and 

Commerce Department on any plans developed, i.e., 

the 2KS, and the CNSTAT panels created to advise 

the Census Bureau and its parent agency on census 

plans. Experts from the OMB along with the IRS and 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), two federal 

agencies that sponsored large Current Household 

Surveys, held key positions on the technical committee of the task force. Ann Azari, mayor of Fort 

Collins, Colorado, co-chaired the Task Force Advisory 

Committee.237 Alexander’s overview for the Technical 

Committee in February 1993 began a series of 

in-depth consultations with these stakeholders about 

facets of the proposed Continuous Measurement 

System, before any criticism was made by nonfederal 

users that their concerns were being ignored.238

From the beginning, however, nonfederal data users 

interpreted the duty assigned to the Census Bureau 

to make federally-mandated data requirements the 

priority as relegating the needs and wants of nonfederal data users to a secondary status. As early as 

October 1992, members of the CAC on Population 

Statistics expressed fear that the OMB and the 

Census Bureau were consulting only federal agencies 

and not making content decisions about analyzing 

the 14 alternative designs based on the needs of local 

users of small-area data. Bob Tortora, the associate 

director overseeing planning of the 2000 Census, 

reassured them that local users would be consulted 

but that the Census Bureau’s budget for 1993 limited 

237 Global Report, April 1995, pp. 72–75; CNSTAT, “Modernizing 

the U.S. Census,” November 1994, p.iii. 238 Refer to section titled, “Building an Initial Prototype for 

Continuous Measurement.”

the committee to making presentations to meetings 

of national organizations, such as the PAA.239

A crucial development at the April 1993 CAC meeting 

also reinforced the concerns of nonfederal data users 

that continuous measurement would not meet their 

needs. At the time, Campbell Gibson was serving as 

a demographic adviser from the Population Division. 

Referring to Alexander’s presentation to the Task 

Force Technical Committee but not to the revised 

general prototype, he told the CAC that continuous measurement might be feasible if data are not 

needed at the small-area (census tract/block group) 

level. Gibson was concerned that the system’s budget 

would be cut midstream, but the minutes circulated 

to stakeholders from that meeting appeared to give 

some stakeholders the sense that the Census Bureau 

did not intend to produce data at that geographic 

level. In a similar vein, Bill Butz, associate director 

of Demographic Programs, warned CAC members 

that the “decade of the 1990s reflect[ed] the most 

threat to census content since 1900.” Butz told users 

that, if they were concerned that the federal government might not continue delivering small-area data, 

they should make their views known to Congress, 

the Census Bureau, and the OMB.240 American 

Demographics picked up the story, quoting Butz as 

saying that one-half of the design alternatives under 

consideration by the Census Bureau “exclude data for 

small areas.” Even as Alexander and participants of 

the CM-JAD moved to include all the 1990 long form’s 

content and to expand the sample size to approach 

the levels of reliability of the 1990 long form provided, CAC members continued to request that data 

users oppose what they saw as a threat to data that 

nonfederal data users needed. Most notably, they 

239 Minutes of the CAC, October 22, 1992, p. 42. The associate 

director overseeing Year Census 2000 research and development 

in April 1994 told the CAC that congressional subcommittees had 

believed previously that census content was almost exclusively 

determined by federal data needs and the appropriation’s 

subcommittee only recently agreed to consider state and local 

governmental needs. Minutes of the CAC, April 14–15, 1994, 

p. 18. Members of the CAC repeated their frustration at the April 

1993 meetings even as Marshall Turner, the head of the Census 

Bureau’s Data Users Services Division, unveiled the Census Bureau’s 

1994–1995 schedule. This included plans to survey nonfederal 

users and to meet with them around the country to document their 

ideas regarding the data needs and uses in terms of content and 

reliability. Members of the PAA informed Turner that nonfederal 

data users’ feared that their concerns about design criteria noted 

in their comments to the Federal Register were not being heard. 

Turner responded by noting that two-thirds of state legislatures had 

commented already, and that most had stated their opposition to 

any reduction either in data at the census block group level data or 

in sample size needed to measure smaller racial groups. Minutes of 

the CAC, April 14–15, 1993, p. 33–36. 240 Minutes of the CAC, April 15–16, 1993, 23, 36, 87–87. 

Correspondence with Campbell Gibson, September 1, 2011.
U.S. Census Bureau 93

mobilized in ways that targeted continuous measurement, posing as the same threat as a postcard census 

with no substitute to the long form. The aforementioned American Demographics article included CAC 

member Ed Spar’s appeal to small-area data users to 

write the Census Bureau and Representative Sawyer’s 

census oversight committee about their desire for the 

federal government to continue delivering small-area 

data.241

Alexander and the other Census Bureau staff working 

on continuous measurement had speculated from the 

beginning that users might be wary of moving averages and cumulations. To preclude this wariness, they 

took steps to familiarize users with the types of estimates the new system would produce. Alexander had 

stated his fear about public acceptance of the new 

system when presenting to the Technical Committee 

in February 1993, and had mentioned his concerns in 

his previously noted memo on model-based estimates as early as 1988. Participants in the CM-JAD 

and members of the Continuous Measurement 

Steering Committee recommended various measures 

that the Stakeholders Concerns Work Team and others working on continuous measurement could take 

to reassure data users. Between late 1993 and late 

1994, the work teams started the following steps, and 

the continuous measurement staff ramped up outreach efforts. These included:

• Using statistical formulas to create mockups of 

data tables to compare the coefficient of variation (CV) between an estimate derived from the 

1990 long form, and the same estimate’s reliability if it had been created using 60 months of data 

collected via continuous measurement.242

• Running an experiment with household survey 

data from the late 1980s to produce simulated 

continuous measurement data and comparing it 

to 1990 Census results.

• Meeting with other statistical agencies and users’ 

groups to demonstrate what the advantages of 

continuous measurement were for their groups.

• Delivering public data use files by August 1995 

that were created from the proposed 1994–1995 

241 Linda Jacobsen, “Warning: Census Data in Jeopardy,” 

American Demographics, June 1993, Vol. 15, Issue 6, pp. 9–10. 242 Cresce, “Final Report of the CM-JAD,” and Alexander, 

“Progress on the Continuous Measurement Prototype,” (CM- 12), 

March 3, 1994.

operational test on Random Digit Dialing (RDD) 

while depending on the availability of funding.243

• Starting a large RDD survey before full implementation began and sharing the data products 

from that survey to show the potential of more 

frequent estimates for areas larger than 500,000 

people.244

At Congressional hearings in late 1994, some nonfederal users gave the first indication that their 

concerns had mounted to the level that they sought 

to persuade the stakeholders with more authority 

over the Census Bureau, including Congress, the 

OMB, the GAO, and the CNSTAT, to oppose implementing the proposal. Between August and October 

1994, data users (mostly state data center affiliates 

and metropolitan planners) wrote to Wisconsin 

Representative Thomas E. Petri voicing their opposition to the Continuous Measurement Proposal, 

saying that it would deprive them of small-area data. 

By 1994, Alexander and the staff of the Continuous 

Measurement Office had clearly developed a prototype that would deliver all the content and data products that had been available from the 1990 decennial 

long form. The proponents of continuous measurement were not able to conduct wide-scale outreach 

to state and local government users until 1995, 

however, and this allowed nonfederal users’ distrust 

of the proposal to grow. By that point the Continuous 

Measurement Prototypes clearly sought to provide 

data for census tracts and even census block groups. 

However, in response to demands to limit the costs 

of the Continuous Measurement Program, Alexander 

243 Alexander and Wetrogan, “Small Area Estimation With 

Continuous Measurement,” (CM-14), March 22, 1994, p. 12, and 

memo from Alexander, “Research Tasks for the Continuous 

Measurement Development Staff,” (CM-15), March 9, 1994, p. C-2. 244 Cresce, “Final Report of the CM-JAD,” p. 1. In addition to 

these measures, Susan Miskura, as director of the 2KS, reassured 

stakeholders in Congressional hearings in May 1993 about high 

relative errors in estimates for census block groups. She said those 

relative errors became less of a problem as users had the Census 

Bureau aggregate data from the census blocks groups to create 

estimates for larger small areas such as census tracts. Data users 

might think that the census block-level errors compounded as 

the data from census blocks were combined. Miskura told them 

that estimates would be drawn from larger samples for areas such 

as TAZs, census tracts, and school districts. Miskura, along with 

a member of the CNSTAT panel, further defended Continuous 

Measurement at the May 1993 hearing by pointing out that 

estimates from the decennial long form, in fact, had high standard 

errors at the census block group and census tract level. The 

Continuous Measurement Staff would make this point in reports and 

presentations to data users through the rest of the 1990s. House 

Subcommittee, Review of Interim Report, May 27, 1993, p. 5 

and 71f; Cynthia Taeuber, email message to author, October 20, 

2011; Alexander, “Plans for Work on the Continuous Measurement 

Approach to Collecting Census Content,” (CM-16), March 31, 1994; 

and Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” 

(CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 5.
94 U.S. Census Bureau

and his staff wanted to remove oversampling of small 

governmental units by their early 1994 prototype. 

Opponents among the metropolitan planners argued 

that far too many of their clients were small governments, the very users for whom the decennial was 

the only affordable source of data. 245 The increase in 

the projected standard errors of continuous measurement’s estimates made its data suspect.

When the Content Work Team produced its comparative data table on hypothetical results, it alerted 

users and Census Bureau staff to this same issue 

of the reliability of estimates for the smallest areas. 

For most areas larger than an average census tract, 

experts at the Census Bureau reported that the 

25 percent increase in standard errors was “no big 

deal.” In practice, the creators of the table wrote, 

“a co-efficient of variation (CV) of 10 to 50 percent 

is acceptable . . . [although] one above 50 percent 

is undesirable.” In their table, the 1990 long-form 

estimate for the number of school-aged children in 

poverty in the town of Cottage City, MD (pop. 1,236), 

had a CV of 46 percent. However, the CV for the 

same estimate created by continuous measurement’s 

60-month cumulation would have a CV over 100 

percent.246

Many data users from small communities spoke as 

if “data would be lost,” but they were really talking 

in shorthand about the reliability of estimates for 

the smallest areas, small subgroups, and the most 

detailed characteristics. Even though the Census 

Bureau had not stated any plan to publish fewer estimates for small areas and data would still be available 

to users ordering special tabulations or accumulated results across census blocks, users still worried 

about the reliability of the estimates, particularly in 

estimates on income. At that time, 48 percent of the 

nation’s 39,500 governmental units had populations 

below 1,000. Planners who helped those governments said the 25 percent decrease in the reliability 

of continuous measurement estimates, as compared 

with those of long-form estimates, made those continuous measurement estimates too uncertain to use 

for decision-making. A jurisdiction with an estimated 

population of under 2,500 having an estimated 

245 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas E. 

Petri to Harry Scarr in United States Congress, House Committee on 

Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, 

and Postal Personnel. The status of planning for the Census 

2000 and the 1995 census test, 103rd Congress, second session, 

September 27, 1994, p. 72. 246 Memo from Alexander, “Further Explorations Raised at 

CNSTAT,” (CM-13), January 31, 1994, Attachment A.

mean household income of $40,000, would have an 

estimated mean household income anywhere in the 

range of $10,000 to $70,000 when sampling error 

was considered.247 Representative Petri showed in 

1994 how important small communities’ concerns 

were to Congress and how big an impediment the 

issue of statistical reliability could be to the adoption 

of continuous measurement when he asked Acting 

Census Bureau Director Scarr about the issue. Petri 

prefaced his question to Scarr with a statement that 

over one-half of the governmental units in his district 

had populations under 1,000.248

While the proposed Continuous Measurement System 

had a sizable and increasingly vocal set of critics, it 

also had won important support outside the agency 

by 1994; support that helped keep it alive as an 

ongoing research project even as its possibility to 

replace the long form in 2000 diminished. At the 

OMB, Katherine Wallman, the chief statistician of 

the United States, had become a strong advocate of 

continuous measurement. Wallman, as co-chair of 

the Census 2000 Taskforce, had been briefed on the 

proposals from the outset and continued to be kept 

up to date as they were developed. She later stated 

the proposed system showed promise to help her 

ongoing quest to improve data collection and content 

items from across the federal statistical system.249

Continuous measurement’s planners argued that its 

estimates would provide important controls for other 

federal surveys and that they would work with federal 

agencies and other levels of government to standardize questions and content items collected in surveys 

and administrative records. 

247 These exact examples were brought up by Steve Murdock, 

the chief demographer for the Texas State Data Center, in 1996 in 

testimony before the Senate oversight committee. His concerns 

shed light on users concerns’ in 1994-1995. House Committee, 

“Census 2000 Putting Our Money Where It Counts,” February 29, 

1996, 

p. 92. 248 Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas E. 

Petri to Harry Scarr in United States, Congress, House, Committee 

on Post Office and Civil Service, Subcommittee on Census, Statistics, 

and Postal Personnel. The status of planning for the Census 2000 

and the 1995 census test: hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Census, Statistics, and Postal Personnel of the Committee on Post 

Office and Civil Service, House of Representatives, 103rd Congress, 

second session, September 27, 1994, p. 72. 249 Larry McGinn, “ACS Chronology,” unpublished notes on the 

history of the ACS, 1999. Deputy Director Scarr gave evidence in 

1995 confirming McGinn’s statement. Scarr told Census Bureau 

regional directors that OMB, and Wallman with it, supported the 

Census Bureau moving forward with continuous measurement. 

Harry A. Scarr, “Opening Remarks: Regional Directors Meeting,” 

June 12, 1995. For Wallman’s work on standardizing federal data 

collection refer to OMB (Katherine Wallman), “Strengthening The 

Federal Statistical System,” a discussion paper, July 14, 1995, and 

Katherine K. Wallman, “The Statistical System Under Stress: Framing 

An Agenda For Success,”
U.S. Census Bureau 95

The potential benefits of continuous measurement for 

surveys conducted for and by other federal agencies 

won key support for the proposed system from people involved in those surveys. Most notably, in April 

1994, Joseph Waksberg, a former Census Bureau 

employee and a contractor overseeing many federal 

surveys, extolled the benefits of continuous measurement to these other surveys. He said that continuous 

measurement had the potential to save survey sponsors’ money and to make their estimates more accurate. Waksberg noted that that the National Health 

Interview Survey (NHIS), for instance, often spent 

more money than it initially budgeted to find and 

calculate stratifications for samples from racial and 

ethnic subpopulations because census data were not 

current and there were high rates of sampling error 

from other sources (such as the CPS). He said that 

continuous measurement offered gains in accuracy 

and cost savings compared with data derived from 

the household survey and estimations from building 

permits on which the NHIS had previously relied.250

In May 1994, the Census Bureau announced an action 

plan to gather feedback from nonfederal data users 

and in the process educate them about content and 

continuous measurement. The large-scale effort to 

solicit data needs from nonfederal data users was 

developed by the Census Bureau at the request of 

the OMB. Between November 1994 and March 1995, 

the Census Bureau sent out close to 70,000 surveys 

and information packets to data users. The survey 

briefly describing the proposed system and asked 

the data users what programs and legal requirements 

census data fulfilled for them if continuous measurement would meet their needs.251 Further, as part of its 

surveys and in its meetings with state data centers, 

the Census Bureau asked users to comment on the 

proposed system with respect to “the availability of 

more frequent data but of slightly less reliability for 

small areas.”252 The results and impact of that survey 

and outreach to data users demonstrate the extent 

to which detailed statistics were used by a range of 

state and local agencies and community groups.

250 Minutes and Report of Committee Recommendations of the 

Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, April 14–15, 

1994, p. 20. 251 U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Management Division, 

“Solicitation of Census 2000 Content Needs From Non-Federal 

Data Users,” November 1995, pp. 2–3, and Minutes and Report of the 

Committee Recommendations, December 1–2, 1994, p. 9. 252 CAC, April 14–15, Census Bureau Response to 

Recommendation 15.

DECISION TO PURSUE BOTH A LONG FORM 

AND CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT IN THE 

2000 CENSUS

In the wake of both challenges to and external 

support for continuous measurement, the Census 

Bureau, in early 1995, suggested running both the 

long-form sample survey and continuous measurement in 2000. Throughout 1994, key stakeholders 

challenged the Census Bureau’s argument that 

continuous measurement could lower the differential undercount and reduce its costs. The challenges 

eroded the likelihood that the Census Bureau would 

win backing for plans to use continuous measurement 

to replace the long form as reducing costs and lowering the differential undercount were two of the major 

reasons that key members of Congress had supported continuous measurement since 1991. Congress 

also deemed the two goals the most important ones 

by which it would judge plans for the 2000 Census.253

Challenges to Continuous Measurement’s Theorized 

Effect on Coverage Rates

The year 1994 saw members of the CNSTAT Panels 

and the GAO dispute theories that continuous measurement would help the Census Bureau with coverage. Keith Rust, a CNSTAT Alternative Methods Panel 

member, made one of the strongest cases in this 

respect in a paper he delivered at the Joint Statistical 

Meetings in 1994. In the paper, he argued that 

even if dropping the long form increased decennial 

response rates, the increase would not translate into 

much of a change in coverage. Rust used the Census 

Bureau’s post enumeration research from late 1993 

that showed that much of the differential undercount 

had come from persons uncounted even when other 

members of their households were enumerated. In 

addition, Rust said the lower response rate on the 

1990 long form had not had much impact on undercoverage because the long form went to a small 

portion of the households enumerated.254 Ivan Fellegi, 

then chief statistician of the government of Canada 

and a member of the CNSTAT Panel on Census 

Requirements and the discussant at Rust’s American 

253 Ivan Fellegi, “Discussion of Keith Rust’s Paper ‘Continuous 

Measurement Alternatives to Census Data Collection,’” paper 

presented to the ASA, August 1994, p. 94. 254 Keith Rust, “Continuous Measurement Alternatives to Census 

Data Collection,” 1994 JSM Proceedings, p. 86.
96 U.S. Census Bureau

Statistical Association (ASA) presentation, agreed 

with Rust’s conclusions.255

Further dimming the luster of continuous measurement, in his 1994 ASA presentation, Rust also said 

that he would need more evidence before accepting the theory that continuous measurement would 

reduce the undercount. Arguing against this, continuous measurement’s proponents posited that 

field staff in a short-form-only census could devote 

greater effort to reducing the undercount. While 

applauding the proposed use of continuous measurement to free up resources in the decennial year for 

efforts to enumerate hard-to-count subgroups, Rust 

requested more concrete evidence that these activities would work. He said that, even though he found 

that premise logical and plausible, the methods were 

untested.256

Those criticisms slowly wore down the sense within the 

Census Bureau that continuous measurement would 

help the decennial census tackle the undercount, 

but first Alexander fought the critics’ assumptions. 

In August 1994, he objected to the CNSTAT’s assertion, based on data from the Census Bureau’s other 

intercensal surveys of households, that continuous 

measurement endeavors would have worse coverage than the decennial long form. Most of the Census 

Bureau’s household surveys were conducted in person 

at that time, so Alexander pointed how the Continuous 

Measurement Survey would employ self-enumeration. 

Moreover, Alexander noted how continuous measurement brought together the best elements of surveys 

and the decennial census. It would use simplified 

household rosters similar to those in the decennial 

census to boost response rates and, like surveys, 

255 Fellegi, p. 93. More importantly, Rust’s arguments 

circulated far beyond the statistical profession. In 1994, when 

the Congressional oversight committee asked the GAO to 

analyze a Census Bureau researcher’s calculations on coverage 

improvements, the GAO affirmed that dropping the long form 

would likely lead to only a trivial improvement on the undercount. 

The Census Bureau researcher calculated that the mail return rate 

on the long form would need to be as low as 40 percent (versus the 

1990 long-form mail return rate of 70.4 percent) to have shifted the 

undercount by 0.5 percent. GAO, “Improving Census Accuracy,” 

GAO/GGD-94-116R, August, 2, 1994, p. 9, and Catherine Keeley, 

“Could the Census Bureau Reduce the Undercount by Not Using 

a Long Form?,” U.S. Census Bureau memorandum, September 10, 

1993. 256 Keith Rust, “Continuous Measurement Alternatives to Census 

Data Collection,” paper presented to the ASA, August 1994, p. 86.

would employ controls on estimates to adjust for differential coverage rates between groups.257

In a report in January 1995, Alexander reiterated 

that a short-form-only census would offset the 

undercount by a negligible amount at best. He also 

agreed with Rust’s position on coverage improvements by saying that it was probably impossible to 

verify scientifically if field staff could do a better 

job counting everyone if they did not have to worry 

about content.258 Later in 1995, other statisticians 

from the Census Bureau joined Alexander in bringing up a potential problem for continuous measurement. It would use population estimates derived 

from the decennial census to adjust the accuracy of 

continuous measurement’s estimates to account for 

undercoverage of different population groups. Those 

decennial-based population controls themselves, 

however, were known to become increasingly inaccurate in the later years of any given decade.259

Prior to the 1995–1996 operational test, staff from 

the Continuous Measurement Office held out hope 

that continuous measurement’s residence rules 

would facilitate capturing information on persons 

often missed within households surveyed.260 Mostly 

however, backers of continuous measurement 

shifted away from arguing about the system’s benefits in terms of coverage and focused instead on 

257 Charles H. Alexander, assistant chief for Longitudinal and 

Expenditure Surveys to Barry Edmonston, study director Panel on 

Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, August 24, 

1994, pp. 2–3, and Charles H. Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous 

Measurement System for the U.S. Census of Population and 

Housing,” (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-17) U.S. Census 

Bureau,, Washington, DC, May 5, 1994, presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the Population Association of America, p. 7. 258 Charles H. Alexander, “DRAFT Some Ideas for Integrating 

the Continuous Measurement System Into The Nation’s System of 

Household Surveys,” (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-19A) 

draft, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, January 6, 1995, (title 

page stated that the paper was “Prepared as a starting point for 

discussions with sponsors of household surveys),” p. 21. 259 Lynn Weidman, Charles Alexander, Gregg Diffendal, Susan 

Love, “Estimation Issues for the Continuous Measurement Survey,” 

paper presented at the ASA Meeting, August 1995, p. 5, and Susan 

Love, Donald Dalzell, and Charles Alexander, “Constructing a Major 

Survey: Operational Plans and Issues for Continuous Measurement,” 

paper presented at the ASA Meeting, August 1995, p. 9. 260 For details on the operational tests, refer to the section of 

Chapter 3 titled “1996 Continuous Measurement Test.”
U.S. Census Bureau 97

its strengths in terms of timely data, frequent data 

releases, and a flexible data collection system.261

Criticisms of Cost Projections for the Continuous 

Measurement System

While the CNSTAT and the GAO criticized claims that 

continuous measurement would improve census coverage, they also challenged Census Bureau’s claims 

that the new system would reduce the agency’s data 

collection costs. His presentation of the revised cost 

estimates to the CNSTAT panels in January 1994 

demonstrated Chip Alexander’s awareness of these 

potential conflicts early on. The CNSTAT members 

quickly pounced on the numbers. They argued that 

sample sizes used in calculating cost estimates did 

not match those proposed for the system in the 

reports they had read. In addition, they challenged 

the cost savings attributed to getting rid of the 

oversample of small governmental units (SGUs). 

Alexander quickly responded that sample sizes had 

been reduced since the release of the earlier reports 

to which the CNSTAT members were referring. 

Alexander said that lower cost estimates were justified based on the smaller sample sizes, along with the 

research-based revision to assumptions on response 

rates.262

As with the issue of coverage, outside criticisms of 

cost projections caused Alexander and the CMSO 

to adjust their arguments. Thus, a few months after 

261 Alexander, “Integrating the Continuous Measurement System 

Into Household Surveys,” (CM-19A), January 6, 1995, p. 21. When 

the Congressional committee overseeing Census Bureau operations 

asked Census Bureau Director Marta Farnsworth Riche in October 

1995 if dropping the long form would improve mail return rates for 

the 2000 Census, she repeated the arguments and data cited by the 

GAO. That is, differences in return rates in 1990 had been too small 

and the long form went to too small a percentage of the population 

to make much of a difference. Riche had been confirmed as the new 

director in October 1994. Martha Farnsworth Riche, “Responses 

to the Subcommittee’s Follow-up Questions On the October 25 

1995 Hearing on Plans for 2000 Census,” November 30, 1995, in 

House Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs, 

and Criminal Justice of the Committee on Government Reform and 

Oversight, Oversight of the Census Bureau: Preparations for the 

Census 2000, 104th Cong., 1st sess., October 25, 1995, p. 90. 262 Memo from Charles H. Alexander, DSMD, to Robert Tortora, 

associate director SDMS, “Further Exploration of Issues Raised at 

the CNSTAT Requirements Panel Meeting,” (Internal Census Bureau 

Reports CM-13) U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, January 31, 

1994, p. 1. Members of the CNSTAT Requirements Panel continued 

to hold this belief while drafting the panel’s final report. Barry 

Edmonston, study director, CNSTAT Panel on Census Requirements 

in the Year 2000 and Beyond, to Art Cresce, on National Research 

Council letterhead, July 27, 1994.

The GAO in January 1994 made a slightly different point in 

testimony before the Congressional oversight subcommittee. 

William Hunt from the GAO pointed out the incongruity of claiming 

that the Continuous Measurement System would reduce the cost of 

collecting census data if, as Acting Director Harry Scarr had said, it 

was merely cost neutral. House Subcommittee, January 21, 1994, 

p. 47–48.

Hunt’s GAO testimony to Congress, Alexander 

directed the new CMSO to refine the cost model 

based on new data coming out of Year 2000 R&D 

experiments.263 Alexander also began to soften his 

position that continuous measurement would replace 

the long form in 2000, arguing instead that the 

Census Bureau could use “a conditional decision process, i.e. decide to adopt continuous measurement 

pending the results of further testing.”264

In the summer of 1994, the CNSTAT challenged the 

Census Bureau’s estimates on which Scarr relied in 

making continuous measurement’s cost neutrality 

argument.265 The CNSTAT Alternative Methods Panel 

conceded that a short-form-only decennial census 

might reduce some costs as field representatives 

would not have to follow up with respondents for 

items left blank or filled in erroneously. However, the 

panel’s September 1994 final report disputed Census 

Bureau claims of savings from response rates brought 

by dropping the long form. The panel also claimed 

that the decennial census benefitted from greater 

publicity and that the Continuous Measurement 

Survey might not live up to the response rate 

assumptions developed from the ALFE test.266 That 

critique was particularly potent as those projected 

response rates were crucial in allowing cost estimators to reduce estimates via cutting both the initial 

sample size required and the amount of nonresponse 

follow-up work needed by the new system.267

In his previously mentioned ASA paper, Keith Rust, 

from the Alternative Methods Panel, argued that 

the Census Bureau would need to decide whether 

the cost of updating the MAF should be assigned to 

263 Memo from Charles H. Alexander, DSMD, to Lawrence McGinn, 

Demographic Surveys Division, “Research Tasks for the Continuous 

Measurement Development Staff (CMDS)” (Internal Census 

Bureau Reports, CM- 15), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 

March 9, 1994 (this memorandum was included as an attachment 

in documents presented to the Professional Associations Census 

Advisory Committee in April 1994, p. c-2). 264 Charles H. Alexander, “Progress on the Continuous 

Measurement Prototype,” (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM- 12), 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, revised March 3, 1994, p. 2. 265 In July 1994, Barry Edmonston initially confronted Alexander, 

Scarr, and Cresce with a draft of the final report of the CNSTAT 

Requirements Panel saying that the Continuous Measurement 

System would cost $1.1 billion over a decade. Alexander and Cresce 

corrected Edmonston’s use of an obsolete sample size again as 

they had in January 1994. Charles H. Alexander, assistant chief for 

Longitudinal and Expenditure Surveys to Barry Edmonston, study 

director Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and 

Beyond, August 24, 1994, pp. 2–3. 266 Refer to section four subsection titled “Budget.” 267 Committee on National Statistics (CNSTSAT), National 

Research Council, Counting People in the Information Age, National 

Academy Press, Washington, DC, September 1994, p. 190.
98 U.S. Census Bureau

continuous measurement.268 The final report of the 

CNSTAT Requirements Panel made a similar statement to Rust’s even while lowering panel members’ 

objection to the estimates based on revised sample 

sizes. The panel asked about the actual savings from 

continuous measurement field representatives’ corrections to the MAF if savings from an updated MAF 

were counted among continuous measurement’s 

merits— even though the entire cost of updating 

were not budgeted to continuous measurement. The 

report also said that the Census Bureau planned to 

save money in the decennial census by following up 

with only a sample of households in the 2000 Census. 

It argued that reducing costs in this manner would 

result in a simultaneous reduction in the marginal 

cost savings of substituting continuous measurement 

for the long-form survey.269

This criticism of the estimated cost savings from continuous measurement along with data users’ advocacy of keeping the long form caused Alexander and 

the CMSO to once again shift their arguments about 

the proposal. Earlier in January 1994, Alexander 

had said he and census planners would meet with 

data users to get their suggestions regarding the 

value of oversampling small governmental units.270

Apparently, the data users convinced him the procedure was worthwhile, and as the Census Bureau and 

APDU processed data from the surveys of nonfederal 

data users, the CMSO in January 1995 added oversampling of small governmental units back into plans 

for operational tests of continuous measurement.271

In a second shift in his arguments in favor of continuous measurement, Alexander dropped arguments 

about cost savings. He began saying that accurate 

cost projections for the new system would have to 

await further testing and that the primary benefits of 

continuous measurement remained the increase of 

data accuracy and the overall improvements it would 

bring to estimates made from other household surveys.272 Additionally, Alexander cited the importance 

268 Rust, “Continuous Measurement Alternatives to Census Data 

Collection,” 1994, p. 85. 269 CNSTAT, “Modernizing the U.S. Census,” released November 

1994, published 1995, p. 129. 270 Memo from Alexander, “Further Explorations Raised at 

CNSTAT,” (CM-13), January 31, 1994, p. 1. 271 Alexander, “Integrating the Continuous Measurement System 

into Household Surveys,” (CM-19), January 6, 1995, p. 18, and Census 

Bureau, “Solicitation of Census 2000 Content Needs form NonFederal Data Users: November 1994–March 1995,” November 1995. 272 Charles H. Alexander, “Plans for Work on the Continuous 

Measurement Approach to Collecting Census Content,” (Internal 

Census Bureau Reports CM-16), U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 

March 31, 1994, p. 5, and Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous 

Measurement System,” (CM-17), May 5, 1994, p. 6.

data users’ placed on the long-form data as opposed 

to their concerns about the “newness” of continuous 

measurement.273

In his January 1995 report in which he substantially 

fleshed out how continuous measurement might benefit other government surveys, Alexander highlighted 

the following sources as leading to the active exploration of alternatives:

• Recommendations made by panelists brought 

together in September and November 1994 

by the COMSIS Corporation for the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) to study the implications of continuous measurement on transportation uses of decennial data.

• The final report of the CNSTAT Census 

Requirements Panel in November 1994.

• Penn State Statistics Professor Clifford Clogg’s274

response at the PAA Meeting to the May 1994 

presentations on continuous measurement by 

Alexander and Larry McGinn, the head of the 

CMSO.

Basing his remarks on the CMSO’s early discussions 

with users such as the COMSIS Corporation panelists, user reports received by the CNSTAT, and 

comments from Professor Clogg, Alexander stated 

his belief that the long-form survey accounted for “a 

much smaller proportion of total census cost than 

the visibility and importance of the long-form data 

may have suggested to some.” He continued that, 

even as the CMSO sought input from the sponsors of 

household surveys on how to design the Continuous 

Measurement System, the CMSO would solicit those 

sponsors’ recommendations for alternatives to continuous measurement (Table 2). In that same January 

1995 report, Alexander said that this exploration of 

alternatives might involve some combination of a 

long form with continuous measurement.275 While the 

273 Alexander, “Integrating the Continuous Measurement System 

Into Household Surveys,” (CM-19), January 6, 1995, p. 21. 274 Clifford C. Clogg, at the time of his comments before the 

PAA, was also an associate of the Population Research Institute 

(PRI). Clogg’s status as a leading contributor to the field of research 

in sociological methodologies added to the importance of his 

criticisms among statisticians, demographers, and sociologists. 275 Alexander and the CMDS may have confused members 

of Congress, state and local data users, and federal agencies 

alike in this regard. For the sake of “consistency,” they continued 

to circulate the version of the prototype where it argued that 

continuous measurement would replace the long form in 2000. 

Alexander argued that this move allowed all stakeholders to 

be reviewing and commenting on the same version and left no 

stakeholders feeling as if they had been left out of discussions. 

Alexander, “Integrating the Continuous Measurement System Into 

Household Surveys,” (CM-19), January 16, 1995, p. 21.
U.S. Census Bureau 99

argument about continuous measurement’s ability 

to reduce costs subsided in the mid-1990s, it would 

return a few years later when a wider gap in response 

rates between the long form and the short form in the 

2000 Census renewed the plausibility of cost neutrality arguments for the ACS.

Conditional Support From Data Users

By late 1994, the Census Bureau’s expanded efforts 

to meet directly with federal statistical agencies to 

increase support for the Continuous Measurement 

Program. When the CNSTAT Alternative Methods 

Panel released its final report in September 1994, 

it ratified what the CM-JAD had wanted since June 

1993; that is, to jointly explore in depth with data 

users how they could benefit from continuous measurement. The Alternative Methods Panel’s report 

called on the Census Bureau to collaborate with other 

federal agencies to research how continuous measurement would affect their work.276 The increased 

number of people working on the project helped 

greatly.

When the CMSO launched its outreach to outside 

stakeholders, Charles Alexander’s personality and 

talents played a role in garnering a more receptive 

audience for the Continuous Measurement Proposal. 

When writing and speaking, Alexander had the 

ability to translate even complex statistical elements 

of the proposed survey into plain English. Several 

years later, one unnamed colleague told Alexander’s 

eulogists that Alexander “could always see a hundred 

different ways to explain a situation.”277 Alexander’s 

patience and generosity with his time when he provided those explanations also helped “ensure that 

those who represent the Census Bureau to Congress 

and others understood the most important things 

about the American Community Survey (ACS).”278

Most importantly, “his true genius,” wrote one colleague “was his ability to demonstrate how the ACS 

could be used/moved/changed to accommodate 

many different data user constituencies.”279 The 

greatest example of his communication skills would 

probably be the speed with which Alexander took a 

276 CNSTAT, “Counting People in the Information Age,” 

September 1994, pp. 183, 186. 277 Alan M. Zaslavsky, “Chip Alexander and the American 

Community Survey,” discussant paper, Proceedings of the 2003 

Joint Statistical Meetings Section on Survey Research Methods, 

p. 4714. 278 Cindy Taeuber and Paula Schneider, “Chip Alexander, A 

Prince of a Human Being,” DSD Newsletter, Internal Census Bureau 

publication, fall 2002, p. 6. 279 Zaslavsky, p. 4714.

criticism from the CNSTAT and produced a comprehensive report on the ways continuous measurement 

would be of use to all the other current surveys. 

Just 3 months after the CNSTAT recommended that 

exploration, Alexander had written his report and 

won approval to release it.280

The CMSO began conducting formal consultations 

with other agencies in mid-1994. As part of these 

consultations, McGinn and Alexander presented the 

latest prototype to the COMSIS/BTS panel. They also 

forwarded many of the research papers on continuous measurement to the panelists.281 In November 

1994, after deliberating on McGinn and Alexander’s 

presentations, some transportation planners began 

to support continuous measurement. They argued 

that updated data would be helpful for planning 

in areas where a new rail station opened or where 

flooding had occurred. With that statement it would 

appear such planners were moved by the potential 

usefulness of the Continuous Measurement System’s 

up-to-date data in responding to natural disasters 

such as the 1993 Missouri-Mississippi Floods, to which 

Alexander and McGinn alluded in speeches. The 

1993 flooding throughout the Lower Missouri River 

Basin had inundated some towns for more than 100 

days, dislocated thousands of residents and farms, 

and severely disrupted highway traffic across the 

Mississippi River Valley. Alexander wrote in one of the 

continuous measurement reports in the fall of 1993 

that, if the proposed new survey “had been in place 

in flooded areas of the mid-West prior to the recent 

floods, it would have been relatively easy to get 

before-and-after characteristics specific to flooded 

280Alexander had proposed that exploration with survey 

sponsors as early as March 1994. The speed with which the report 

was produced, like the speed with which Alexander worked through 

the process of weeding out alternative designs, is still remarkable. 

Alexander, “Research Tasks for the Continuous Measurement 

Development Staff,” (CM-15), March 1994. 281 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Implications of 

Continuous Measurement for the Uses of Census Data in 

Transportation Planning,” U.S. Department of Transportation, April 

1996. 
100 U.S. Census Bureau

blocks.”282 (Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for the historic 

flooding on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.)

282 Over the next several months, Alexander and Larry McGinn 

elaborated on the explanation and added other types of disasters. 

For example, a couple of weeks after the Northridge Earthquake 

caused $20 billion in damages and displaced 20,000 people 

in Southern California, they added that the updated MAF and 

continuous measurement data would help in quick response surveys 

in areas with earthquakes. Data from continuous measurement 

data would serve as the baseline for “a focused local survey to 

measure needs and rate of recovery for areas affected by natural 

disasters.” In that same vein, when telling the Association of Public 

Data Users about continuous measurement, Deputy Director Harry 

Scarr mentioned the system’s potential in areas struck by a large 

natural disaster “like the mid-West floods or Hurricane Andrew.” The 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics report only singled out floods, 

but McGinn, Alexander, Scarr, and others from the Census Bureau 

were tying the new program to many natural disasters. Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics, “Implications of Continuous Measurement 

for the Uses of Census Data in Transportation Planning,” p. 2; 

Charles H. Alexander, A Continuous Measurement Alternative for the 

U.S. Census, (Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-10), U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, October 28, 1993, p. 39; U.S. Geological 

Survey, “USGS Response to an Urban Earthquake – Northridge 

’94,” 1996, <https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1996/ofr-96-0263/>,

accessed October 29, 2011; Alexander, “Progress on the Continuous 

Measurement Prototype,” (CM-12), March 3, 1994, Attachment E; 

Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement System,” (CM-17), 

May 5, 1994, p. 15; and Harry A. Scarr, “Continuous Measurement,” 

speech presented to the Association of Public Data Users (APDU), 

October 16, 1994.

In 1993–1995, Charles Alexander and Larry McGinn 

told audiences that continuous measurement’s 

up-to-date data would help measure needs and rates 

of recovery from natural disasters. These satellite 

images show some of the scale of disasters to which 

they referred from that period. The Great Missouri 

Floods of 1993 closed or washed out bridges on 

the Missouri River between Kansas City and Saint 

Charles, MO, affecting hundreds of thousands of 

commuters. 

The United Press described the floods as turning 

U.S. Highway 67 into “a marina” and threatening construction of the new Clark Bridge over the Mississippi 

River. In Figure 3, the dark areas represent thousands 

of acres inundated with the entire town of West 

Alton surrounded. Areas in bright pink are farmlands 

scoured bare by flood waters.283

283 Lee W. Larson, chief, Hydrologic Research Laboratory, 

NOAA/National Weather Service, “The Great USA Flood of 1993,” 

paper presented at the International Association of Hydrological 

Sciences Conference, Anaheim, California, June 24–28, 1996. 

And Bill Greenblatt, “The Great Flood of 1993,” United Press 

International, July 24, 1993.

Figure 2.

The Missouri and Mississippi Rivers Within Their Banks: 1991 

117

Figure 2 Historic Flooding on the Missouri & Mississippi Rivers

In 1993-5, Charles Alexander and Larry McGinn told audiences that con�nuous measurement’s

up to date data would help measure needs and rates of recovery from natural disasters. These

satellite images show some of the scale of disasters to which they referred from that �me 

period. The Great Missouri Floods of 1993 closed or washed out bridges on the Missouri River 

between Kansas City and Saint Charles, MO, affec�ng hundreds of thousands of commuters. 

Above is an image created from NASA’s Landsat. It shows the area north of Saint Louis, MO

with the rivers in their usual banks in August 11, 1991.30

 30 Lee W. Larson, Chief, Hydrologic Research Laboratory, NOAA/Na�onal Weather Service, “The Great USA Flood of 

1993,” Paper presented at the Interna�onal Associa�on of Hydrological Sciences Conference, Anaheim, California,

June 24-28, 1996. And Bill Greenbla�, “The Great Flood of 1993,” United Press Interna�onal, July 24, 1993

West Alton, MO US HWY 67

West Alton, MO

US Hwy 67

Greater Saint Louis, MO

St. Charles, MO
U.S. Census Bureau 101

Some members of the COMSIS panel even came to 

the proposed system’s defense when other panelists 

mentioned complaints about the reduced reliability 

of estimates from continuous measurement.284 These 

new continuous measurement supporters asserted 

that the reduced levels of confidence and increased 

errors, even those associated with the annual releases 

of small-area data, would be acceptable for the types 

of applications transportation planners performed 

with the data. Both supporters and skeptics of continuous measurement on the COMSIS panels voiced 

their desire to observe further research on the new 

system before they would support its replacement of 

the decennial long form.285 For instance, some transportation planners argued that multiyear estimates 

would give them a fuzzy snapshot from which they 

could not develop transportation and antipollution 

plans.286

284 Refer to section four subsection titled “Census Bureau 

Involvement of Stakeholders and Their Concerns.” 285 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, “Implications of 

Continuous Measurement for the Uses of Census Data in 

Transportation Planning,” U.S. Department of Transportation, April 

1996, p. 2. 286 Government Executive, March 1995.

While Alexander, McGinn, and the CMSO addressed 

individual agencies and statisticians, Acting Director 

Scarr informed a broader group of stakeholders 

that momentum had built behind the proposed 

Continuous Measurement System. At the APDU 

meeting in October 1994, Scarr reminded the audience of the long history of efforts to deliver more 

timely data and Congressional interest in the new 

system’s promise. He addressed the great lengths to 

which data users extrapolated from decennial data 

to correct for timeliness. Scarr said that if the Clinton 

Administration decided to implement continuous 

measurement in 2000, it would succeed. Most importantly, Scarr declared that the idea of continuous 

measurement had “already assumed a life of its own” 

and that “the genie could no longer be put back in 

the bottle.”287

Some data users also began promoting continuous 

measurement on their own. In the wake of CMSO 

287 Harry A. Scarr, “Continuous Measurement,” speech presented 

to the Association of Public Data Users (APDU), October 16, 

1994. According to Constance Citro, at that time a senior staff 

officer at the CNSTAT, audience members interpreted Scarr’s 

speech as saying “the train is leaving the station,” that continuous 

measurement was moving forward if not in 2000 then in 2010.

Figure 3.

Flooding on the Missouri River: 1993 

117 

Figure 2 Historic Flooding on the Missouri & Mississippi Rivers

In 1993-5, Charles Alexander and Larry McGinn told audiences that con�nuous measurement’s

up to date data would help measure needs and rates of recovery from natural disasters. These 

satellite images show some of the scale of disasters to which they referred from that �me 

period. The Great Missouri Floods of 1993 closed or washed out bridges on the Missouri River 

between Kansas City and Saint Charles, MO, affec�ng hundreds of thousands of commuters. 

Above is an image created from NASA’s Landsat. It shows the area north of Saint Louis, MO 

with the rivers in their usual banks in August 11, 1991.30

 30 Lee W. Larson, Chief, Hydrologic Research Laboratory, NOAA/Na�onal Weather Service, “The Great USA Flood of 

1993,” Paper presented at the Interna�onal Associa�on of Hydrological Sciences Conference, Anaheim, California, 

June 24-28, 1996. And Bill Greenbla�, “The Great Flood of 1993,” United Press Interna�onal, July 24, 1993 

West Alton, MO US HWY 67

West Alton, MO

US Hwy 67

Greater Saint Louis, MO

St. Charles, MO
102 U.S. Census Bureau

meetings with transportation planners and other 

presentations to the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), the newsletter of the 

Government Statistics Section of the ASA opened its 

update on continuous measurement with the advantages of the proposed system. The article read like 

McGinn’s crib notes and listed the system’s strengths 

as bringing higher quality data, delivering data after 

only a 6-month time lag, and allowing screening to 

find rare populations. The editors of the Government 

Statistics Newsletter however repeated the conclusion voiced in the final report of the CNSTAT Census 

Requirements Panel. The newsletter concluded that 

the problems on variance in small areas and questions on moving averages’ effect on such content 

items as journey to work and income made many 

data users prefer to have both, but to have the 2000 

long form and then to begin continuous measurement after the census.288

The Census Bureau intensified its outreach efforts 

to educate users about continuous measurement in 

1995. In March 1995, Alexander and McGinn joined 

new Census Bureau Director Martha Farnsworth 

Riche and Chief Statistician of the United States 

Katherine Wallman at the first colloquium of 

Federal Statistical Technical Experts on Continuous 

Measurement. Representatives from 15 federal 

agencies attended as did statisticians from Council 

of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics 

(COPAFS), the National Science Foundation, and the 

state of Maryland. In addition to presenting detailed 

theoretical and operational aspects of the proposed 

Continuous Measurement System, McGinn and 

Alexander shared tables created from the Continuous 

Measurement System’s simulation files with attendees 

at the colloquium. The CMSO gave its audience in this 

and later meetings an even greater sense of how the 

new system might benefit them. It granted data users 

access to a website from which they could download the simulation files and the results from future 

operational tests.289 The federal agencies agreed 

to meet every 4 months on the topic of Continuous 

Measurement.290

288 “Continuous Measurement,” Government Statistics Newsletter, 

Winter 1995. 289 When Martha Farnsworth Riche was confirmed as director 

of the Census Bureau in October 1994, Harry Scarr reverted to just 

serving as deputy director. Charles H. Alexander, Jr., “CMS and the 

Statistical System,” presentation at the “Continuous Measurement: 

First Colloquium with Federal Statistical Technical Experts,” March 14, 

1995, Slide 35 and Illustrations A-O. 290 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee, April 27–28, 1995, p. 34.

Support had increased by April 1995 to the point that 

members of both the ASA and PAA reported they 

were having “spirited debates” about the advisability 

of substituting continuous measurement for the long 

form in 2000. Speaking for the ASA members of the 

CAC, Richard Kulka, vice president of the Research 

Triangle Institute, said many of the ASA’s members 

hoped continuous measurement could be implemented by the end of the decade. They were almost 

universally supportive of its continuously updated 

data, and some ASA members strongly favored continuous measurement even if it were implemented at 

the expense of the long form. Kulka reported, however, that the ASA and the PAA were divided more 

than he had ever seen them. Many ASA members 

feared that the series of Continuous Measurement 

reports from the Census Bureau indicated the agency 

was moving too quickly into operational plans for 

the new system without addressing issues, including 

conceptual issues about cumulated data. This level 

of debate within the statistical community left the 

Census Bureau without definitive support to run continuous measurement alone in 2000.291

These debates caused the Census Bureau to move 

closer to the CNSTAT panels’ position that it ought to 

research continuous measurement but not implement 

it in 2000. In April 1995, the CAC echoed the CNSTAT 

panels recommending that the Census Bureau continue research on a Continuous Measurement System 

but that it not replace the long form with that system 

in 2000. The Census Bureau told the CAC that it was 

pursuing funding to conduct the long-form survey in 

2000 alongside a separate Continuous Measurement 

Survey as a means of testing continuous measurement’s reliability and feasibility.292

In this response to the CAC, the Census Bureau 

essentially was committing to running with the 

COMSIS Panel’s recommendations of the previous 

fall. That COMSIS panel urged the Census Bureau to: 

“ . . . undertake a test for the Census 2000 where 

long-form data are collected nationwide and compared with a parallel collection of continuous 

291 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee, April 27–28, 1995, p. 34. 292 Minutes and Recommendations of the Census Advisory 

Committee, April 27–28, 1995, p. 83–84. It could be that when Riche 

took over as the new director of the Census Bureau at the end of 

1994 that she was already predisposed against replacing the long 

form in 2000 from her days on the CAC or that her former CAC 

colleagues convinced her. In any case, her installation as director 

correlated with the agency changing its wording about Continuous 

Measurement as a replacement in 2000.
U.S. Census Bureau 103

measurement data for a representative sample of 

geographic areas.”293

In that recommendation, the COMSIS panel essentially laid out the idea that the Census Bureau 

implemented in 2000 with the Census 2000 

Supplementary Survey.294

While McGinn, Alexander, and other CMSO staff 

members attempted to convince data users of continuous measurement’s promise of greater access to 

more data, Census Bureau executives used support 

from key stakeholders to persuade remaining skeptics within the agency. Deputy Director Harry Scarr 

made certain to note OMB’s support for continuous 

measurement as a selling point in speeches in 1995 

to Census Bureau regional directors and to state 

data centers.295 Before Scarr made these speeches, 

McGinn and his staff had already been holding seminars on continuous measurement with various Census 

Bureau divisions and circulating the latest plans for 

the system.296 McGinn and Scarr’s outreach within the 

Census Bureau can be seen as efforts to settle internal tensions surrounding the proposed program.297

Among data users, the turnaround in Ed Spar’s 

thinking about continuous measurement speaks to 

the effectiveness of the CMSO’s outreach efforts. As 

executive director of the COPAFS, Spar authored a 

column sent to PAA members in the organization’s 

quarterly newsletter. In this spring 1995 column, he 

stated that the adoption of continuous measurement 

and budget cuts to statistical agencies might lead 

to loss of data for local decision-making. Spar told 

readers that it was “imperative that you write to your 

own representatives, and those who are responsible for oversight and appropriations” to inform 

them about this potential loss and noted COPAF’s 

plans to raise user concerns with the new head of 

293 Minutes and Report of Committee Recommendations, 

April 2, 1995, pp. 83–84, and Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

“Implications of Continuous Measurement for the Uses of 

Census Data in Transportation Planning,” U.S. Department of 

Transportation, April 1996, p. 1. 294 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, April 2009, p. 2-2. Also refer to Chapter 4. 295 Harry Scarr, Opening Speech at the Regional Directors 

Meeting, June 1995. 296 Memo from Lawrence McGinn, chief, Continuous 

Measurement Design Staff, to those interested in Continuous 

Measurement, “The Continuous Measurement Project,” October 7, 

1994, p. 5. 297 Hints of these tensions had surfaced at the April 1993 CAC 

meeting where different Census Bureau staff presented conflicting 

views of the CM System’s ability to deliver small-area data if it had 

to be cost neutral.

the subcommittee overseeing Census Bureau operations.298 By fall 1995, CMSO staff had allayed some 

of Spar’s fears, and he designed the Census Bureau’s 

marketing plan to educate data users and stakeholders about the proposed system and win their backing 

for it.299

The Promise of Data for Downsizing Government

The growing number of data user supporters of 

continuous measurement became something of a bulwark against renewed threats from Congress to cutback on the content of data collection by the Census 

Bureau. The new 104th Congress threw the future 

of both continuous measurement and the long form 

into doubt in 1995. It moved oversight of the decennial census from the House subcommittee headed 

by continuous measurement supporter Tom Sawyer 

to the House Committee on Government Reform 

and Oversight. Support for continuous measurement 

from the new committee’s chair was uncertain. More 

importantly, the new leadership of the appropriations 

committee demanded to know why the decennial 

census was collecting information for other federal 

agencies and businesses without reimbursement. One 

budget proposal for the Census Bureau limited the 

agency to what it had spent in 1994.300

Throughout 1995, the new leaders of the appropriations committee handed the Census Bureau another 

complication. Their March 1995 budget proposal eliminated funding for the long form entirely and left in 

doubt the possibility of funds for alternative sources 

of data.301 Appropriations committee members reiterated their argument that the long form was too complicated, asked unnecessary questions, and burdened 

respondents. In addition, they said that the Census 

Bureau would have to rein in what Congressional 

aides described as “runaway budgets” for the 2000 

Census and make cuts like every other agency to balance the federal budget. They added a new argument 

that the lower response rate on the long form likely 

made it cost more than the $300 million estimated by 

298 Edward J. Spar, executive director Council of Professional 

Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS), “From the Federal 

Statistical System: The COPAFS Column,” PAA Affairs, Spring 1995. 299 In March 1995, Spar attended the First Colloquium with 

Federal Statistical Technical Experts; he even gave the introductory 

remarks. Spar heard McGinn and Alexander detail dozens of ways 

the Continuous Measurement System would benefit other federal 

surveys and provide data of use in planning and evaluating state 

and local programs. 300 L. Nye Stevens, Fundamental Design Decisions Merit 

Congressional Attention, Testimony, GAO/T-GGD-963, October 25, 

1995, p. 24. 301 Harry A. Scarr, “Opening remarks,” Regional Directors 

Meeting, June 12, 1995.
104 U.S. Census Bureau

the Census Bureau.302 The eventual funding proposal 

by the House Appropriations Committee softened 

these stances but also supported continuous measurement. It recommended a budget line item for 

continuous measurement in the Census Bureau’s budget while also trimming 30 percent from the agency’s 

request for funds to research and develop the 2000 

Census.303

In order to align with the priorities of the new 

Congress, McGinn and Alexander made reference 

to how continuous measurement would help further 

the devolution of power desired by Congressional 

leadership and by Vice President Albert Gore’s 

reinventing government initiative. When McGinn and 

Alexander spoke to the colloquium with federal statistical experts on continuous measurement in March 

1995, the Administration of President William Clinton 

actively sought to give cities and states more control 

over funds spent in enterprise zones. For their part, 

Congressional Republicans wanted to cede to the 

states greater authority for programs ranging from 

crime, poverty, and environmental regulation. McGinn 

and Alexander noted how continuous measurement 

would provide consistent measures nationwide by 

which the federal government could distribute funds 

equitably among states. Continuous measurement’s 

annually updated data and its ability to add on supplements also held promise for government officials’ 

metrics by which to measure cost effectiveness of 

state and local government programs.304

Congressional representatives may have been swayed 

by such arguments, they may have agreed with the 

House Appropriations Committee’s reasoning on 

reduced burdens and costs, or possibly they agreed 

302 Allan Holmes, “Countdown to 2000,” Government Executive, 

Vol 27, Issue 3, March 1995. The Census Bureau refined and 

circulated several estimates for the long form’s cost between 

1992–1995 perhaps adding to Congressional appropriators’ 

suspicion of the figures. The CNSTAT panel brought up the 

$300–500 million figure in 1994 from figures supplied by the 

Census Bureau but also created its own lower estimates. Census 

Bureau Director Riche also forwarded to Congress in November 

1995 an estimate of $300 million, the revised estimate Charles 

Alexander had circulated in reports a few months before. CNSTAT, 

“Modernizing the U.S. Census,” November 1994, p. 125; Alexander, 

“A Continuous Measurement Alternative,” (CM-10), p. 28; Alexander, 

“Integrating the Continuous Measurement System into Household 

Surveys,” (CM-19), January 6, 1995, p. 21; and Riche, “Responses to 

the Subcommittee’s Follow-up Questions,” in House Subcommittee, 

October 25, 1995, p. 90. 303John Hoeffel, “Shrinking the Census,” American 

Demographics; October 1995, Vol. 17, Issue 10, pp.32–38. 304 Lawrence McGinn, “The Continuous Measurement System,” 

presentation at the “Continuous Measurement: First Colloquium 

with Federal Statistical Technical Experts,” March 14, 1995, Slide 

27, and Charles H. Alexander, Jr., “CMS and the Statistical System,” 

presentation at the “Continuous Measurement: First Colloquium 

with Federal Statistical Technical Experts,” March 14, 1995, Slide 26.

with Representative Sawyer’s continued appeals for 

a system with more timely data than the long form. 

Whatever their individual reasons, Congress passed 

the Appropriation Committee’s bill without amendment in the summer of 1995. With that bill, they 

gave some support for the proposed Continuous 

Measurement System, in that they approved a budget 

line item for research on continuous measurement. 

They also voted to give the Census Bureau $4 million 

to research and develop the system.305

Census Bureau Director Riche also brought up census 

data’s role in the devolution of power but did so in 

defending continuing the long form and only testing 

continuous measurement in 2000. Speaking before 

Congress in October 1995, she aligned data from the 

long form with a key goal of the new Congress, the 

delegation of power from the federal government 

back to states, counties, and cities. Riche argued 

that the House’s cuts from decennial planning funds 

would hamper potential improvements in census 

data and pointed out state and local governments 

were the heaviest users of that data. Riche added 

that the decennial census made federal, state, and 

local government operations less costly given how 

heavily it was used for planning schools, highways, 

and other services and facilities. Its information, Riche 

noted, would be all the more crucial to states trying 

to implement and monitor programs they took back 

from the federal government. When Congress asked 

if continuous measurement or estimates derived only 

from administrative records might one day be a suitable replacement for the long form, Riche said she 

agreed with the CNSTAT panels that neither alternative would be ready and fully tested by 2000. 306

The results of the APDU and Census Bureau surveys 

of data users’ needs helped demonstrate the extent 

to which detailed statistics were used by a range 

of state and local agencies and community groups. 

They also became powerful defenses of continued 

collection of small-area data when Congressional 

appropriators threatened to eliminate funding for the 

long-form sample and possibly provide no funds for 

replacing it with alternative data collection methods. 

For example, the APDU report illustrated dozens 

of uses by local and state government agencies. It 

also noted how banks used migration data from the 

305 House of Representatives, 104th Congress, 1st Session, 

Report 104-196, July 19, 1995. 306 House Subcommittee, Oversight of the Census Bureau: 

Preparations for the Census 2000, October 25, 1995, pp.77, 74, and 

90f.
U.S. Census Bureau 105

Figure 4.

Key Events in the Development of the Continuous Measurement Proposals: 1988–1995

J

August 1988 Decade Census Program’s (DCP) rolling ohnson on proposes mid-decade sample census sample by states

Alexander proposes model-based projections December 1988

April 1989

Johnson and Herriot present DCP at Joint 

August 1989 Stat. Meetings (JSM)

Deep Currents challenges defenders of December 1989

traditional data collection

April 1990 Director Bryant calls for “fundamental 

rethinking” of the census

Rep. Sawyer says Census Bureau (CB) could August 1990 use rolling samples for long-form data

Task Force for 2000 Census formed

December 1990

April 1991

Rep. Sawyer: “census needs fundamental 

reform” Decennial Census Improvement Act— August 1991 mandates study of rolling samples

December 1991

Continuous Measurement (CM) introduced 

as a census design

April 1992

August 1992

Rep. Sawyer: CM opportunity to increase House Appropriations Committee 

frequency of data recommends data collection by December 1992 rolling sample

January 1993 Task Force Technical Cmte recommends 

CM prototype with 250,000 address sample only using methods ready for 2000

CB releases CM Design Alternative Rep. Sawyer to data users—“refom the 

May 1993 census or Congress will dismantle it.”

CM Design Steering Committee formed

Alexander presents CM at JSM

September 1993 CM to Congress: CM is the design making 

fundamental reforms

CM proposal with 500,000 sample, 800,000 

initially January 1994 CM proposal with 250,000 address sample, 

400,000 initially

Continuous Measurement office created

May 1994

McGinn and Alexander present CM to 

September 1994 workshop of transportation data experts

CNSTAT recommends keeping the long form in 

2000 and continuing research on CM January 1995

CB says it wanted both a long form 

May 1995 and CM in the budget for year 2000
106 U.S. Census Bureau

long form when determining which branches should 

extend banking hours and which services branches 

should offer in their neighborhoods.307

Based on their responses to information from those 

reports and another from the Census Bureau, it would 

appear that Congress was moved by them, albeit 

not entirely in favor of continuous measurement. 

The Census Bureau sent one report to Congress that 

went question by question from the long form citing 

statutory requirements and programs for which data 

from the questions were required. Congressional 

mandates for the use of census data made Congress 

the de facto “number one” user of census data. 

Representative Karen Thurman brought up that 

report and said it proved the data’s vital importance in allocating billions of dollars in funds when 

she told other members of the Congressional oversight committee to fight the House Appropriations 

Committee’s stance. Thurman argued federal agencies would have to conduct their own surveys to 

replace the long-form data and that effort would 

cost twice as much as the long-form survey. Thurman 

also said she did not believe that a smaller ongoing 

survey could deliver the data. A few months later and 

unlike Representative Thurman, Senator Phil Gramm 

of Texas was, in his words, “not married to the long 

form” but supported continued collection of its content. He echoed Thurman when he argued that the 

data had more value than what the long-form survey 

cost. “We’re talking about pennies which generate 

data . . . on which trillions of dollars of private investments are made,” Gramm said.308 With that statement, Gramm opened his effort to restore most of 

the funds cut by the House from the Census Bureau’s 

budget for research and development and testing for 

the 2000 Census and continuous measurement.

While a joint conference of the Senate and House 

restored most of the funding to the Census Bureau 

for research and development, this agreement did 

307 Association of Public Data Users, “APDU Year Census 2000 

Content Working Group Final Report on Activities,” April 12, 1995, 

p. 13. Before the Census Bureau officially published its report on 

data uses in November 1995, it released videos of focus groups 

talking about the decennial census, its questionnaires, how the data 

are used, and whether they understood continuous measurement. 

It showed that video to stakeholders and gave advance copies of 

the survey report to members of Congress. “Minutes and Report of 

the Committee Recommendations,” October 26–27, 1995, p. 13–15. 308 In the same hearing as Rep. Thurman’s defense of the 

long form, the GAO and the Inspector General’s office brought 

up the long-form data’s role in state and local activities. House 

Subcommittee, Oversight of the Census Bureau: Preparations 

for the Census 2000, October 25, 1995, p. 8, and John Hoeffel, 

“Shrinking the Census,” American Demographics; October 1995, 

Vol. 17 Issue 10, pp. 32–38.

nothing to lessen the fears of data users about budgets. Stakeholders had Riche’s statements implying 

that continuous measurement would not be implemented in 2000 because it would not be tested fully 

by then. Still, they feared Congress would cut the 

decennial budget for either the long form or continuous measurement. Several stakeholders stated that, 

under that scenario, their original fear present since 

1993 would come true—the Census Bureau would 

have only enough funds to run a small Continuous 

Measurement Survey and not be able to deliver smallarea data.309 Data users persisted in that fear even as 

the Census Bureau left mention of continuous measurement out of its “Maize Book,” the official plan for 

the 2000 Census. These budget uncertainties would 

take the better part of the next 10 years to resolve.310

CONCLUSION

As the Census Bureau ran its first field test of continuous measurement in early 1996, several unresolved 

questions preoccupied the CMSO. Would results 

from field tests show that response rates matched 

assumptions made in the prototypes? Would the 

Census Bureau, the U.S. Postal Service, and other 

government agencies be able to build and maintain 

an address list to improve coverage and bring down 

costs? Would the Census Bureau’s permanent staff 

and field offices be able to handle ongoing field 

operations of the size needed to do 250,000 interviews a month and process the data? Or would the 

logistics of processing so many forms on a rolling 

basis across 3,000 counties prove unwieldy as an 

advisory committee member had forecast?311 Could 

the agency conduct the number of phone and computer assisted interviews forecasted? Would data 

from the test sites prove to be useful and valuable 

to members of Congress and to their constituents in 

309 Minutes and Report of the Committee Recommendations, 

October 26–27, 1995, p. 13–15, and Barbara Vobejda, “Critics 

Keeping Tabs on the Census Bureau; Agency Under Congressional 

Pressure to Be More Accurate With Less Money in 2000 Tally,” The 

Washington Post, December 5, 1995. 310 Census Bureau, “The Plan for Census 2000,” also known as 

“The Maize Book,” revised and reissued February 28, 1996, and 

House Subcommittee, “Census 2000: Putting Our Money Where It 

Counts,” 104th Congress, 1st Sess., February 29, 1996, p. 92.” 311 Joseph Waksberg in Minutes and Report of Committee 

Recommendations of Professional Associations,” April 14–15, 1994, 

pp. 20–21.
U.S. Census Bureau 107

whose districts the sites were run?312 Would government agencies sponsoring household surveys warm 

to the Continuous Measurement Survey’s more timely 

data as they learned more about it? Or would they 

and other data users object to cumulations or census 

content pushed off the short form? Would it even 

be feasible to incorporate add-on questionnaires 

to have the Continuous Measurement Survey help 

gather some data for other household surveys?313

How closely would costs from the test sites match 

312 Charles Alexander said that Census Bureau would consult 

heavily with users on products from even “cumulative estimates 

simulation projects.” And the CNSTAT Panel to Evaluate Alternative 

Census Methods recommended in its published report and in 

testimony to Congress that the Census Bureau should “develop 

a program to inform data users of the simulated data products 

emerging from their test surveys and get their reactions.” 

Alexander quoted in the Minutes of the CAC, April 14–15, 1994, 

p.22, and Norman Bradburn, prepared statement before the 

House Subcommittee on Census Statistics and Postal Personnel, 

September 24, 1994, p. 28. 313 Waksberg advised in April 1994 that previous attempts to 

provide model-based estimation for small-area data using data 

from other surveys had not been successful. Minutes of the CAC, 

April 14, 1994, p. 21. By 1995, the Alexander and the CM Office no 

longer thought about adding data from the other surveys and 

instead looked to add on questionnaires. Charles H. Alexander, 

“Continuous Measurement and the Statistical System,” (CM-20), 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, May 23, 1995, presented at 

the Annual Labor Market Information Conference in Nashville, TN, 

p. 2.

the assumptions made in the prototypes? Would 

Congress weigh favorably the benefits of more timely 

data against a decade of costs that by some 1995 

projections would be about twice as much as that 

of the decennial long-form survey? Would Congress 

approve funding for larger operational tests in the 

late 1990s? As of May 1995, Alexander noted there 

had been no final decision about proceeding to fullscale implementation of continuous measurement.314

Would the Census Bureau’s operations be ready, if 

need be, to launch a fully operational Continuous 

Measurement Survey as scheduled in 1999 or would 

research findings or budget cuts delay or shelve 

even comparative testing of continuous measurement alongside the decennial census? The Census 

Bureau’s efforts to find answers to those questions 

are the subject of Chapter 3 of this book. The eventual winning of funding and approval for replacing 

the long form with a Continuous Measurement Survey 

took almost another decade from the time the CMSO 

launched its first outreach to data users, and is the 

subject of Chapter 4 of this book.

314 Alexander, “Continuous Measurement and the Statistical 

System,” May 23, 1995, p. 2.
This page is intentionally blank.
U.S. Census Bureau 109

Chapter 3. From the Drawing Board to Field Testing: 1995–1999

INTRODUCTION

When Martha Farnsworth Riche came to the Census 

Bureau as its director in 1994, she concluded that 

Continuous Measurement (CM) “did not have 

many fans . . . ”1 Most of the other federal statistical agencies were concerned that the new survey 

might endanger ongoing surveys that they sponsored. Indeed, one member of the Census Advisory 

Committee on the Professional Associations thought 

that “many Federal agencies are afraid of the CM 

concept . . . ”2 While federal data users saw CM as a 

potentially disruptive force, nonfederal data users 

were concerned with the higher standard errors associated with CM estimates and with the possibility that 

the survey might not receive the required funding 

from Congress. If data users abandoned the census 

long form for CM and Congress did not fund the survey, they would have no small-area data at all.3

Skepticism about CM was not limited to those outside the Census Bureau. 2000 Census long-form data 

devotees believed that the Census Bureau should 

devote scarce research funds to improving the census 

sample questionnaire, not to developing an entirely 

new survey. Other skeptics within the agency pointed 

out the many technical details that would have to be 

resolved before the Census Bureau could release estimates from the new survey to the public.4

In the midst of this ongoing discussion of the merits and risks associated with CM, the Census Bureau 

decided to move ahead with the newly-dubbed 

1 Martha Farnsworth Riche, “Oral History Interview Transcript,”

January 28, 1998, p. 12, available at <www.census.gov/history/pdf/

Riche_Oral_History.pdf>, accessed October 17, 2012.

2 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the Census Advisory Committee

on the Professional Associations,” meeting held on April 27–28, 1995, 

p. 35. 

3 Riche, “Oral History,” p. 12

4 Some of these critics were the same people who had raised 

questions about Herriot’s earlier proposals, refer to “Report of the 

Demographic Area Committee to Critique ISAS,” September 2, 1988;

 interview of Nancy Gordon, retired associate director for 

Demographic Fields, October 17, 2012.

American Community Survey (ACS).5 Senior census 

officials considered two options:

• Implement the ACS in 2000 and drop the census 

long form.

• Postpone the elimination of the census long form 

until 2010, substitute a smaller version of the ACS 

as part of the 2000 Census research and experimental program, and implement the ACS in the 

early 2000s.

Initially, Census Bureau leadership appeared to favor 

the first option. ACS planners devised a rigorous 

testing regimen for the new survey that would take 

place between 1996 and 1998.6 Successful testing 

5 There are several versions of how the American Community 

Survey got its name. One account stressed the role of Preston J. 

Waite, the chief of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division. 

In the spring or early summer of 1995, Waite realized that the term 

“continuous measurement” would mean very little to the public 

or to members of Congress. Even worse, the survey questionnaire 

that was about to be sent to the printer had to contain the name of 

the survey. He convened an ad hoc group of Census Bureau staff 

and told them to come up with a new name for the survey in 1 hour. 

After much discussion, the term American Community Survey 

(ACS) emerged as the consensus choice. Refer to Susan Love and 

Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community Survey: November/

December 1996 Sample Profile.” A second version focused on 

a high-level meeting led by Martha Riche, the Census Bureau’s 

director. Congressional staff members informed the external liaison 

for CM, Cynthia Taeuber, that they believed that no one wanted 

the government to measure them continuously. These staffers 

suggested that the survey needed a new name. Taeuber told Riche 

about the problem. With her interest in marketing, Riche grasped 

the nature of the complaint and agreed that the name had to be 

changed. Riche scheduled a meeting of those responsible for 

ACS policy and budget, including Riche herself, Taeuber, Waite, 

Charles Alexander, and probably Lawrence McGinn. Initially, Waite 

and Alexander wanted to retain “continuous measurement,” but 

they gave way to Riche’s insistence on a new name. The group 

deliberated and agreed on the “American Community Survey.” 

Personal communication from Cynthia Taeuber, March 30, 2012. 

Yet another version came from Lawrence McGinn. He remembered 

Director Riche returning to Census Bureau headquarters after 

discussing the new survey at venues around the country. From her 

discussions, she concluded that the name ought to be changed 

and that “American” implied national coverage while “community” 

connected the actual neighborhoods in which people lived. In 

McGinn’s version, Riche asked her staff to consider “American 

Community Survey” but neither demanded it be accepted nor 

indicated much urgency for the decision. These three versions 

are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some variation of all three 

of them may have taken place. Personal communication from 

Lawrence McGinn, July 11, 2012.

6 Charles H. Alexander, “A Prototype Continuous Measurement 

System for the U.S. Census of Population and Housing,” CM-17, 

May 5, 1994.
110 U.S. Census Bureau

would mean the introduction of basic survey operations nationwide in fiscal year (FY) 1999 and implementation of the complete CM program in FY 2000. 

However, as described in Chapter 2, wide-ranging 

concerns from federal and nonfederal stakeholders and technical issues related to the survey itself 

blunted this drive for substituting the ACS for the 

2000 Census long form.

Instead of implementing the ACS in 2000, Census 

Bureau executives chose to include the ACS in 

the 2000 Census as part of the decennial census 

research and experimental program. The Census 

Bureau would conduct large-scale testing of the ACS 

concurrently with the collection of 2000 Census 

long-form data. This version of the plan called for the 

Census Bureau to mail questionnaires to 400,000 

addresses distributed across all the counties each 

month from January 1999 until December 2001. Over 

the course of 3 years, 14.4 million households would 

receive the ACS. This was a large enough sample to 

allow for direct comparisons between ACS estimates 

and 2000 Census long-form data on a tract-by-tract 

and place-by-place basis. Beginning in 2002, the 

Census Bureau planned to reduce the sample size to 

250,000 housing units per month, or 3 million per 

year.7 Also in 2002, the Census Bureau would produce 1999–2001 cumulated estimates for all tracts 

and block groups to give local officials an opportunity to observe how the new survey would affect the 

data for their areas and possibly gain their support. 

In addition to the ACS, CM included expanding and 

improving the population estimates program and 

then incorporating the results into the ACS as population controls. Concurrently, the Census Bureau 

proposed developing statistical modeling techniques 

using selected characteristics to produce small-area 

estimates of income and poverty.8

7 Lawrence McGinn, “The Continuous Measurement Approach 

to Collecting Census Content,” paper presented at the Census 

Advisory Committee meeting on October 20, 1994.

8 U.S. Census Bureau, “Objectives for the Original and New ACS 

Proposals,” n.d., memorandum from Mimi Born, Lynn Weidman, and 

Don Fischer to Cindy Taeuber, June 6, 1995, attachments Exhibit 

14, “Periodic Censuses and Programs: Program Change Personnel 

Detail: Continuous Measurement,” and “Fiscal Year 1996 Costs for 

Continuous Measurement.” The Estimation of Small Area Income 

and Poverty program later became the Small Area Income and 

Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program. 

The Census Bureau’s budget request for FY 1996 

contained a substantial increase for the CM staff. The 

proposed $11 million budget would expand CM personnel from fewer than 20 full-time staff to 84 fulltime staff and 106 part-time staff.9 The ACS required 

the larger staff in order to finalize the planning for the 

1996 test in six local sites and a national sample, and 

to collect, process, evaluate the data, and develop the 

data products.10

Between mid-1995 and mid-1996, the Census 

Bureau’s position on the testing and implementation 

of the ACS underwent considerable modification, 

as both federal and nonfederal data users raised 

significant concerns. These concerns were that the 

ACS survey design limitations or unavoidable budget reductions might preclude it from providing the 

needed small-area estimates.11 The Census Bureau’s 

plan to oversample small governmental units to 

assure sufficient sample size and reliability of estimates conflicted with efforts to control the cost of 

continuous measurement. In late October, Census 

Bureau Director Martha Farnsworth Riche informed 

the agency’s congressional oversight subcommittee 

that eliminating the 2000 Census sample questionnaire would produce only “limited cost savings.” 

Furthermore, the Census Bureau did not find “any 

alternative data collection methodologies [that] can 

provide comparable information for all geographic 

entities and meet all legislated requirements and 

other data needs.” Whatever research progress the 

agency might make in the years leading up to the 

2000 Census, Director Riche concluded “ . . . neither 

the Census Bureau nor other experts . . . believe anything approaching full substitution will be possible in 

2000.”12

9 U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, “Budget 

Estimates Fiscal Year 1996,” Exhibits 13 and 14. 10 Memorandum from Mimi Born, Lynn Weidman, and Don 

Fischer to Cindy Taeuber, June 6, 1995, attachments Exhibit 14, 

“Periodic Censuses and Programs: Program Change Personnel 

Detail: Continuous Measurement,” and “Fiscal Year 1996 Costs for 

Continuous Measurement,” and memorandum from Lawrence S. 

McGinn, chief, Continuous Measurement Staff, to Jay Keller, assistant 

chief Year 2000 Research and Development Staff, “Funding to 

Continuous Measurement Staff,” May 5, 1994. 11 Refer to Chapter 2 for detailed discussions.

12 Martha Farnsworth Riche, “Responses to the Subcommittee’s 

Follow-up Questions on the October 25, 1995 Hearing on Plans for 

Census 2000,” in U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee 

on National Security, International Affairs, and Criminal Justice of 

the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, “Oversight 

of the Census Bureau: Preparations for the 2000 Census,” Oct. 25, 

1995, 104th Cong., 1st Sess., 1995, p. 90. All the quotations in this 

paragraph come from this source.
U.S. Census Bureau 111

The formal announcement of the Census Bureau’s plan 

for the 2000 Census took place on February 28, 1996, 

at the Department of Commerce in Washington, DC.13

That plan contained brief descriptions of the shortform and long-form questionnaires but no mention 

whatsoever of CM or the ACS. 

To replace the original version of the ACS testing and 

implementation schedule, the CM staff developed a 

revised ACS proposal (“ACS, Version 2”) that accomplished most of the earlier plan’s objectives at lower 

cost, while postponing the beginning of nationwide 

data collection until 2003, and the release of the full 

range of data products until 2008. 

The revised version had two major components. From 

1999 through 2001, the Census Bureau would collect ACS data annually from approximately 240,000 

addresses in approximately 40 sites.14 The selection 

criteria included: already being an ACS test site, 

population size, rate of population change between 

1990 and 1996, geographic distribution across the 

country, ease of enumeration, and presence of local 

experts to help Census Bureau staff analyze and 

evaluate the estimates. The agency used population 

size, rate of change between 1990 and 1996, and ease 

of enumeration components to create 24 strata in the 

group of test sites.15 Each of the sites the ACS staff 

selected contained at least one of the 24 strata. The 

entire sample included examples of all strata, as well 

as other desirable characteristics, such as geographic 

diversity, certain racial or ethnic groups, seasonal 

populations, and American Indian reservations.16

Census Bureau statisticians planned to compare the 

ACS-based estimates from these 40 sites with those 

calculated for the same sites from the 2000 Census 

long-form sample, and assess similarities and differences. The agency added a second group of eight 

test sites, termed “phase-in sites,” in order to help 

13 U.S. Census Bureau, “The Plan for Census 2000,” February 28, 

1996. 14 By April 1997, 37 sites were selected to be sampled between 

1999 and 2001. Following a significant budget reduction for FY 

1999, the number of sites was reduced to 31. For more information, 

refer to the discussion in this section. 15 Stratification is the process of dividing a population into 

relatively homogeneous subgroups, or strata, with regard to one 

or more characteristics. In this case, ACS statisticians divided cities 

or counties into strata based on population size, rate of population 

change between 1990 and 1996, and ease of enumeration. 16 “Background Information for the February 19, 1997 Meeting 

of the American Community Survey Product Development Group,” 

and “American Community Survey Product Development Group 

Summary,” February 19, 1997.

regional office staff obtain data-collection experience 

prior to national implementation in 2003.17

The second component of the revised ACS was 

the national sample. Starting in 2000 and extending through 2002, an annual national sample of 

960,000 addresses (divided into 12 monthly samples 

of 80,000 addresses each) would receive the ACS 

form in the mail and return it by mail. An ACS interviewer would interview nonrespondents either by 

telephone or in person. To reduce cost, the agency 

allowed some clustering in the sample counties.18 In 

2003, they would expand the national sample to the 

planned 3 million addresses per year and cover all 

counties in the country in an unclustered design. The 

revised ACS would replace long-form data collection 

in the 2010 Census.19

1996 CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT TEST

The ACS staff designed the 1996 CM test to assess all 

components of the survey from data collection and 

tabulation to the production of data products and 

teaching data users how to use the data. Two specialized studies preceded the 1996 test: a simulation 

study of the multiyear data that the new survey would 

produce, and an evaluation of computer-assisted 

telephone interviewing (CATI) for collecting long-form 

type census data.20

The objectives of the 1996 CM test were to:

• Collect census long-form data using a monthly 

household survey design.

• Produce estimates down to the block level. 

17 The phase-in sites aimed to give all regional offices experience 

in collecting ACS data in metropolitan settings. These sites were 

Anchorage, AK; San Diego, CA; Lake County, IN; Baltimore City and 

County, MD; Suffolk County, NY; Genessee County, MI; Hennepin 

and Ramsey Counties, MN; and Mecklenburg County, NC. 18 Cluster sampling is a technique used when researchers can 

identify relatively heterogeneous groupings with respect to some 

characteristic(s) in a statistical population. Each cluster should be 

representative of the entire population. Geographically dispersed 

populations are often expensive to survey. Sampling clusters rather 

than individuals often reduces interviewer travel costs. 19 Memorandum from Preston Jay Waite to Joel L. Morrison, 

Dwight P. Dean, and John H. Thompson, “American Community 

Survey Test Sites for FY 1999,” July 17, 1997; U.S. Census Bureau, 

“Objectives for the Original and New ACS Proposals,” n.d.; and “The 

Revised American Community Survey,” n.d. 20 Gregg Diffendal and Lynn Weidman, “Simulation of 

Continuous Measurement for Small Area Estimation,” 1995 Annual 

Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Proceedings, 

Statistical Research and Methodology Section, pp. 602–07, and 

Kenneth B. Dawson, Janice A. Sebold, Susan P. Love, and Lynn 

Weidman, “Collecting Census Long Form Data Over the Telephone: 

Operational Results of the 1995 Continuous Measurement CATI 

Test,” 1995 Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, 

Proceedings, Statistical Research and Methodology Section, 

pp. 590–95.
112 U.S. Census Bureau

• Evaluate the overall CM system, including three 

modes of data collection (mailout/mailback, 

CATI, and computer-assisted personal interviewing [CAPI]), the control system, the data processing system, and the data tabulation system.

• Evaluate the overall coverage and data quality of 

CM.

• Obtain real-time cost and productivity information to create an improved cost model.21

The original plan called for tests in six sites representing a broad range of geographic areas: Columbus, 

Ohio (a large central city in a metropolitan statistical 

area [MSA]); Rockland County, New York (a metropolitan county that is part of the New York primary 

MSA); Brevard County, Florida (a single county MSA); 

Louisa County, Iowa (a rural county that introduced 

a county-wide address system in the early 1990s); 

Fulton County, Pennsylvania (a rural county without a county-wide address system); and Multnomah 

County, Oregon (which included Oregon’s largest 

city, Portland). Using the master address file (MAF) 

then under construction by the Census Bureau’s 

Geography Division, the ACS team selected a sample 

of addresses each month from the four urban areas 

and one of the rural areas (Louisa County, Iowa) in 

the test. In rural Fulton County, Pennsylvania, the 

agency planned to select a monthly sample of housing units from an address list constructed by Census 

Bureau personnel.22

Reductions in the Census Bureau’s FY96 budget 

forced the agency to cut the number of continuous measurement test sites from six to four. Those 

retained were Fulton County, Pennsylvania; Rockland 

County, New York; Brevard County, Florida; and 

Multnomah County, Oregon. 

ACS planners considered several factors in selecting 

the sites including population size and density, the 

presence or absence of city-style addressing, geographic balance (which gave agency interviewers 

across the country experience in collecting data for 

this survey), current survey workload, and the sites’ 

land area.23 For the three urban sites (Rockland, 

Brevard, and Multnomah Counties), the Census 

Bureau prepared special advance MAF by matching 

21 U.S. Census Bureau, Continuous Measurement Staff, 

“Continuous Measurement Matters,” April/May 1995, p. 1. 22 Ibid, p. 2; and Federal Register, V. 60, No. 115, June 15, 1995, 

p. 31447. 23 City-style addresses refer to those having a street number 

and street name. Other types of addresses include post office box 

numbers, rural route numbers, star routes, etc.

each site’s 1990 Census Address Control File (ACF) 

with the U.S. Postal Service’s 1995 Delivery Sequence 

Files (DSFs). The rural site, Fulton County, contained 

few city-style addresses, so the Census Bureau compiled an address list by listing each housing unit in the 

county.24

DATA COLLECTION 

When fully implemented, the ACS would consist of 

an annual 3 percent sample of housing units, divided 

into monthly installments of 250,000 housing units. 

One year of data was sufficient to produce reliable 

estimates of population and housing characteristics 

for geographic entities containing at least 65,000 

people. Geographic areas with populations between 

20,000 and 64,999 required 3 years of cumulated 

data to obtain valid estimates. For areas with fewer 

than 20,000 people, reliable estimates required 5 

years of sample data. However, the 1996 ACS test 

sampled at the particularly high rate of 15 percent 

in most areas and 30 percent in small governmental 

units in order to collect enough data in 1 year to allow 

for comparisons with the long-form data from the 

1990 Census. For comparisons of small areas, such as 

block groups and tracts, ACS researchers had to collect in 1 year the amount of information it would normally take 5 years to collect. This large, single-year 

sampling operation yielded sufficient data for the 

ACS staff to compare directly the data collected in 

1996 with those from the 1990 Census long form.25

While virtually all Census Bureau surveys taken at this 

time relied on a combination of telephone interviews 

and personal visit interviews for data collection, the 

24 U.S. Census Bureau, “Operational Overview of the 1996 

American Community Survey,” pp. 1–2, available at <www.census.

gov/history/pdf/operationaloverview1996acs.pdf>, accessed 

December 2023, and U.S. Census Bureau, “ACS: Accuracy of the 

Data (1996),” p. 1, available at <www.census.gov/acs/www/html/

meth_doc/accuracy/1996/accuracy.htm>, accessed March 20, 2011. 

Refer also to Charles H. Alexander, Scot Dahl, and Lynn Weidman, 

“Making Estimates From the American Community Survey,” paper 

presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Statistical 

Association in Anaheim, CA, in Proceedings of the Section on 

Government Statistics and Section on Social Statistics, Alexandria, 

VA, American Statistical Association, 1997, pp. 88–97, and Amy 

Symens Smith, “The American Community Survey and Intercensal 

Population Estimates: Where Are the Crossroads?,” Population 

Division Technical Working Paper No. 31, December 1998, pp. 3–4. 25 U.S. Census Bureau, “ACS: Accuracy of the Data (1996),” p. 1, 

available at <www.census.gov/history/pdf/accuracyofdata-acs1996.

pdf>, accessed December 2023; Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, 

“The 1996 American Community Survey Monthly Response Rates, 

by Mode,” paper presented at the American Community Survey 

Symposium, U.S. Census Bureau, March 1998, p. 1; and Charles H. 

Alexander, “Recent Developments in the American Community 

Survey,” paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American 

Statistical Association, Dallas, TX, August 1998. For the 1996 ACS, 

small governmental units were defined as areas with fewer than 

1,000 housing units.
U.S. Census Bureau 113

ACS adopted the decennial census practice of mailing questionnaires to the in-sample addresses and 

instructing respondents to complete the forms and 

return them to the Census Bureau by mail. The mailout/mailback strategy was the least expensive way 

of collecting information, and those designing the 

ACS used it to reduce overall costs. Census Bureau 

planners anticipated that about half the housing units 

would respond by mail. Only after the mailout/mailback procedure had run its course would the Census 

Bureau begin the second and third phases of data 

collection: CATI and CAPI.26

Mail Data Collection. Research carried out in preparation for the 2000 Census indicated that multiple 

contacts with respondents increased voluntary 

cooperation with the census. With this research in 

mind, the 1996 test in urban areas included up to four 

contacts with each address in the sample. During the 

third week of the month prior to the mailing of questionnaires, the Census Bureau sent letters notifying 

the inhabitants of that month’s sample housing units 

that they had been selected and would soon receive 

an ACS packet by mail. They received the questionnaire package about one week later. A week after 

that a reminder card asked all the recipients to complete and return the questionnaire and thanked them 

if they had already mailed the completed form. Two 

weeks after that, the Census Bureau sent a second 

questionnaire package only to those housing units 

that had not returned a completed form.27

However, since the rural site (Fulton County) contained few city-style addresses and had no plan to 

implement a county-wide address system, the Census 

26 Susan Love, Donald Dalzell, and Charles Alexander, 

“Constructing a Major Survey: Operational Plans and Issues for 

Continuous Measurement,” paper presented at the 1995 annual 

meeting of the American Statistical Association, in Proceedings of 

the Survey Research and Methods Section, Alexandria, VA, American 

Statistical Association, 1995, pp. 584–85, and Deborah H. Griffin 

and Preston Jay Waite, “American Community Survey Overview and 

the Role of External Evaluations,” Population Research and Policy 

Review, Vol. 25, No. 3, June 2006, p. 206. 27 Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The 1996 American 

Community Survey Monthly Response Rates, by Mode,” paper 

presented at the American Community Survey Symposium, 

U.S. Census Bureau, March 1998, p. 1.

Bureau compiled a sampling frame28 by sending personnel into the field to locate and list each housing 

unit in the county and then computerizing the listing. 

In addition, Census Bureau staff marked the location 

of each housing unit on a census map (map spotting). Following the creation of an address list and the 

selection of the sample housing units, Census Bureau 

employees hand-delivered questionnaire packages to 

each sample address. People living in Fulton County 

did not receive advance notification letters, reminder 

cards, or second questionnaire packages.

The Census Bureau divided the sample addresses 

in each site into 12 monthly groups, or panels. 

Questionnaire mailings began in November 1995 

and continued through October 1996.29 The 1996 

test included only housing units; the Census Bureau 

did not add group quarters until the 1999 and 2001 

tests.30

Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). 

At the beginning of the month following the initial 

mailing of questionnaires, the Census Bureau followed up with telephone calls to nonresponding 

addresses. While the 1990 Census made limited 

28 In the Census Bureau’s population census and survey work, 

the sampling unit is usually a street address consisting of a street 

name and address number. The sampling frame is a complete list of 

all possible sampling units, in this case a list of all street addresses. 

Researchers select sample units from the sampling frame or address 

list.29 The partial federal government shutdown from December 16, 

1995, through January 6, 1996, complicated the 1996 test. The Census 

Bureau cancelled the January mailing and completed the telephone 

and personal visit cases for the November and December panels on 

a delayed schedule. Refer to Alexander, Dahl, and Weidman, “Making 

Estimates,” 1997, p. 89. An earlier federal government shutdown, from 

November 14, 1995, through November 19, 1995, did not disrupt the 

data collection effort. 30 The Census Bureau divides living quarters into two groups: 

housing units and group quarters. A housing unit is a house, an 

apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room 

occupied or intended for occupancy, in which the residents live 

separately from any other people in the building and that have 

direct access from the outside of the building or through a common 

hall. Group quarters consist of two components: institutional group 

quarters that provide authorized, supervised care or custody of 

the inhabitants (such as a correctional institution or a nursing 

home), while noninstitutional group quarters include such living 

arrangements as college dormitories, military quarters, and group 

homes. The 1997 ACS test in Franklin County, Ohio, included a 

limited test of group quarters procedures. Refer to U.S. Census 

Bureau, “2000 Census of Population and Housing, Selected 

Appendixes: 2000,” Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 

2003, pp. B-13–14.
114 U.S. Census Bureau

use of telephone follow-ups, surveys in succeeding 

years made increasing use of centralized CATI. The 

greatest success had been with recurring surveys, in 

which an interviewer initially contacted respondents 

at their addresses, administered the questionnaire, 

and obtained their permission to conduct subsequent 

interviews by telephone. For an address-based survey such as the 1996 continuous measurement test, 

making the initial nonresponse follow-up telephone 

contact required obtaining accurate telephone numbers for specific housing units without knowing the 

respondent’s surname. Accurate data was critical as 

incorrect matches could lead to contacting the wrong 

address, wasting scarce resources, and potentially 

adding sampling bias if the interviewer conducted the 

interview anyway.31

Earlier testing demonstrated that commercial vendors could provide accurate telephone numbers for 

about 35 percent of the sample addresses given to 

them. The 20 to 30 percent of all households in the 

United States with nonpublished telephone numbers 

(wide variations existed from state to state) added 

to the complexity of the endeavor. Limitations on the 

availability and accuracy of address lists matched 

with telephone numbers led some census researchers 

to suspect that, at most, a CATI facility could only 

reach about 25 percent of the nonresponse universe. 

On a positive note, Census Bureau research suggested CATI interviewers might be able to complete 

interviews with about one-half of the nonresponding 

units that they could contact. Researchers expected 

the 1996 continuous measurement test to provide the 

first assessment of the extent to which the agency 

could collect census long-form type data during a 

CATI operation.32

Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). 

The last phase of data collection, personal interviewing, began 2 months after the initial mailing. 

The nonresponse universe for personal visit follow-up included all the mail nonresponse follow-up 

31 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey,” 

1995, pp. 585–86. 32 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey,” 

1995, p. 586.

addresses for which the Census Bureau was unable 

to acquire a telephone number, plus those addresses 

CATI interviewers were unable to contact via telephone. The latter group contained a diverse group of 

housing units that the ACS staff expected would be 

the most difficult to enumerate. ACS staff selected 

a 1 in 3 subsample of these addresses and sent it to 

field interviewers. Interviewers located the remaining assigned housing units and attempted to conduct interviews. These lists evolved daily as late mail 

returns arrived at the census office, thus reducing the 

workload.33 The CATI and CAPI phases of data collection each took 1 month.34

Results of the Mailout/Mailback Test. Continuous 

measurement staff carefully examined the responses 

of the sample households to the questionnaire 

mailings because the mail response and mail return 

rates at the four sites would play a crucial role in the 

success or failure of the test and, possibly, of the CM 

concept. 

The ACS staff calculated the mail response rate by 

dividing the number of housing units returning a 

completed questionnaire plus those giving information to the telephone questionnaire assistance (TQA) 

unit by the total number of households receiving the 

questionnaire.35 This rate determined the size of the 

nonresponse follow-up workload and would continually change as the staff received late returns.36

Table 1 presents the mail response rates for the overall 1996 test and for each of the four sites. Continuous 

33 Late mail returns were completed questionnaires received at 

the census office after the cut-off date for generating the reminder 

mail and CATI nonresponse follow-up lists. 34 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey,” 

1995, p. 587, and Anthony Tersine, “Item Nonresponse: 1996 

American Community Survey,” paper presented at the American 

Community Survey Symposium, U.S. Census Bureau, March 1998, p. 1. 35 Telephone questionnaire assistance consisted of a toll-free 

telephone number where ACS sample respondents could call if 

they had questions, comments, or complaints. Based in the Census 

Bureau’s Jeffersonville, IN, office, nearly one-half of the calls 

answered by telephone questionnaire assistance (TQA) operators 

were complaints. However, these operators also administered the 

ACS questionnaire over the phone to respondents who were unable 

or unwilling to complete it themselves. Refer to Love and Diffendal, 

“The American Community Survey: April 1996 Sample Profile,” 

pp. 6–9. 36 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” p. 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 115

measurement researchers were quite pleased with 

the overall 60.9 percent response rate, which was 

almost 11 percent more than they had expected.37

Census researchers found that the monthly response 

rates for Multnomah and Rockland counties were 

remarkably stable, with the former ranging from 

about 63 percent to 66 percent and the latter running 

between 54 percent and 60 percent.38 The Brevard 

County response rate rose in the autumn and winter, only to decline from April through the summer 

months. CM researchers attributed much of this pattern to seasonal variations in occupancy rates.39

By contrast, the mail return rate is based on occupied housing units only. For this reason, the staff 

could not calculate the number until after the census 

takers had visited each nonresponsive household and 

determined the actual number of occupied housing 

units. Since the denominator for mail return rates was 

smaller than for the mail response rates, ACS experts 

expected the mail return rates to be higher percentages than the mail response rates, and they were. Mail 

response rates varied between about 54 percent and 

73 percent. Removing vacant and nonexistent units 

from the sample also revealed that the high public 

37 The long-form mail response rate in the 1990 Census was 61.0 

percent, nearly identical to the mail response rate for the 1996 ACS 

test (60.9 percent). Refer to U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of 

Population and Housing, Part A, 1990 CPH-R-2A, pp. 6-28–29. 38 In Fulton County, monthly response rates (between 45 percent 

and 55 percent) were lower than in the other counties. This was 

partly a result of not delivering replacement questionnaires in the 

county. However, the small sample size in Fulton County also meant 

that response was highly susceptible to variations in the number of 

vacant and nonexistent units in the sample from month to month. 39 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” pp. 2–3.

cooperation numbers remained stable during the 

Continuous Measurement Survey in Brevard County, 

where the mail return rate hovered around 70 percent 

throughout the test year.40

Respondents sent completed forms to the Census 

Bureau’s National Processing Center (NPC) in 

Jeffersonville, Indiana, where Census Bureau staff 

“checked in” the questionnaires and submitted them 

to a set of reviews, or “edits.” The first of these, the 

“clerical edit,” determined if the questionnaire was 

missing enough information to require a telephone 

contact. If it was, the NPC clerk sent the questionnaire to a different section of the NPC, where a staff 

member attempted to contact the respondent by 

telephone in order to complete the form. The other 

two edits were termed “coverage edits.” One compared the questionnaire entry giving the number 

of people living at the address with the number of 

people for whom the questionnaire contained information. The second checked if the number of people 

listed as living at the address was greater than five 

as the test questionnaire had room for responses 

from only five people. For either condition, agency 

staff tried to contact the household by telephone to 

resolve discrepancies or fill in missing information. 

Blank questionnaires automatically received a telephone follow-up.41

40 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” p. 3. 41 Alexander, Dahl, and Weidman, “Making Estimates,” 1997, 

p. 89, and Charles H. Alexander, “The American Community 

Survey: Design Issues and Initial Test Results,” in Statistics Canada, 

Proceedings of Symposium 97: New Directions in Censuses and 

Surveys, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada, 1998, pp. 187–192.

Table 1.

Mail Response for the 1996 Continuous Measurement Test

Mailing and response

Total Rockland Brevard Multnomah Fulton

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total sample1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  81,719 X 

Questionnaires returned from 

initial mailing (initial mail 

response rate). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41,707 51.0 6,271 46.0 14

Second mailing2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .  48,481 X 9,

Replacement questionnaires 

returned (replacement 

response rate). . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8,170 16.9 1,441 15.

Total mail response3. . . . . . . . . .  49,755 60.9 7,693 56.5 17,244 60.4 

NA Not available.

X Not applicable.

1 Total sample is the denominator for the initial and total mail response rates.

2 Second mailing is the denominator for the replacement response rate.

3 Total mail response is less than the sum of initial and replacement response because some households returned both questionnaires.

Source: Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The 1996 American Community Survey Monthly Response Rates, by Mode,” Table 1.
116 U.S. Census Bureau

Results of the CATI Test. Census Bureau staff 

attempted to collect data from addresses that had 

not responded by mail in the three urban sites. Since 

Fulton County lacked a city-style address system, it 

was impossible to make firm matches between telephone numbers and addresses. Approximately 1 month 

after the initial mailing of questionnaires, Census 

Bureau staff generated a nonresponse follow-up 

address list, which they submitted to commercial 

vendors who were able to supply telephone numbers 

for about 50 percent of the nonresponding addresses. 

During the 3.5 weeks of telephone nonresponse follow-up, approximately 19 percent of these households 

returned completed questionnaires. (Table 2) In addition, staff at the Jeffersonville office regularly removed 

late mail returns from the telephone follow-up list.42

However, problems persisted as 25 percent of the 

telephone numbers provided by vendors either did 

not connect interviewers with the correct addresses 

or proved to be nonworking numbers. Therefore, 

about 55 percent of the original CATI workload 

required personal interviews. 

While there was a good deal of variation in the 

month-to-month response rates by site, the annual 

total exceeded 60 percent at each site. During the 

year, CM staff tried several different methods to 

increase response, including contacting directory 

assistance to see if it could provide phone numbers for name and address combinations and using 

a business database to obtain phone numbers for 

managers of multiunit structures—but to no avail. The 

CM staff’s careful study of CATI telephone records 

did determine the most successful times of the day 

and days of the week to conduct interviews and the 

42 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” pp. 3–4.

subsequent modification of calling times proved quite 

successful.43

Results of the CAPI Test. Sending field representatives to specific addresses to administer questionnaires was the most expensive mode of data collection. In order to reduce costs, the Census Bureau sent 

only one-third of the nonresponse cases remaining 

after the mailing and CATI phases to the field for 

data collection.44 Many of these addresses proved to 

be vacant, nonexistent, or were those for which the 

Census Bureau had been unable to obtain telephone 

numbers. Further, the CAPI sample included many 

of those who refused to complete the mailed questionnaire or to participate in the CATI data collection 

effort (Table 3).45

Across the four test sites, CAPI began about 2 

months after the initial questionnaire mailing. It took 

3 to 4 weeks and involved administering automated 

questionnaires with built-in skip patterns and interviewer checks on respondent answers, similar to 

the CATI form. Despite the challenges of CAPI data 

collection, interviewers were able to obtain interviews 

from respondents at over 94 percent of the occupied 

housing units.46

43 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” pp. 4–5. 44 Nonresponse cases also included one-third of a second 

component. When the Census Bureau could not mail a questionnaire 

directly to sample housing units because the area lacked a house 

number/street name addressing system or the post office did not 

use the system for mail delivery, Census Bureau field staff delivered 

the questionnaire package directly to the housing unit. If residents 

of these units did not return a completed questionnaire, they were 

also included in the CAPI follow-up list. Refer to Love, Dalzell, and 

Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey,” p. 584. 45 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” p. 5. 46 Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” pp. 5–6.

Table 2.

CATI Response for the 1996 Continuous Measurement Test

Mailing and response

Total Rockland Brevard Multnomah

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

CATI universe1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Late mail returns removed. . . . .  3,522 18.9 746 21.3 1,098 16.1 

Ineligible phone numbers. . . . .  4,787 25.7 696 19.9 1,973 29.0 

Eligible for telephone 

interviews2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Completed interviews. . . . . . . . .  6,521 63.4 1,363 66.3 2,2

Refusals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Other noninterviews. . . . . . . . . .  2,310 22.5 390 19.0

X Not applicable.

1 CATI universe is the denominator for late mail returns removed and ineligible phone number rates.

2 Eligible for telephone interview is the demoninator for completed interviews, refusals, and other noninterviews.

Source: Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The 1996 American Community Survey Monthly Response Rates, by Mode,” Table 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 117

The CAPI phase of data collection was the primary 

method the survey used to identify vacant housing 

units. Almost 21 percent of the units visited during 

CAPI were vacant. The ACS produced estimates of 

the number and some of the characteristics of these 

vacant units in all census geographic entities. As a 

result, CAPI interviewers remained responsible for 

collecting basic housing unit information on vacant 

units from knowledgeable respondents, such as 

building owners or managers, real estate dealers, or 

neighbors.47

In a survey intended to become nationwide and to 

rely on monthly field visits covering virtually every 

county in the country, this was important because the 

Census Bureau had to be able to predict the size of 

the work force it would need to collect survey data. 

Successful management of the survey required that 

the number of field representatives should be about 

the same every month.48

The survey team anticipated an issue with the residence rules used in the decennial census. Unlike the 

decennial census, which uses a single reference date 

(Census Day, April 1 of the census year), the ACS is 

taken throughout the year. Thus, a residence rule with 

a fixed reference date is not feasible. Instead, the ACS 

adopted a “current residence” rule, also known as a 

2-month rule. For the 1996 test, the survey parameters defined current residents of the housing unit as 

those who lived or intended to live at the address for 

more than 2 consecutive months. The survey did not 

consider people staying fewer than 2 months and 

who usually resided at another address as current 

residents. This rule excluded people in the household 

who had another, more permanent residence. In order 

47 Ibid., p. 6.

48 Ibid.

to minimize the omission of people with no usual 

residence from household rosters, if a guest had no 

other address, the survey considered them a resident. 

In this way, the Census Bureau hoped to reduce the 

population undercoverage that tended to be higher in 

household surveys than in censuses.49

In order to have a fixed start date for the residence 

rule, the Census Bureau tied this to the date of initial 

ACS contact with a household. For the mailing phase, 

the initial contact date was the date the respondent 

completed the questionnaire. For the CATI and CAPI 

phases, the date on which the interviewer contacted 

a current resident became the initial contact date.50

THE 1997 AND 1998 TESTS

In 1997, the Census Bureau continued the operational 

test in the four sites surveyed in 1996 and added 

four new sites: Douglas County, Nebraska (including Omaha); Harris and Fort Bend Counties, Texas 

49 Residency and residence rules are important and complicated 

concepts. Love and Diffendal, “1996 American Community Survey 

Monthly Response Rates,” p. 2, summarized the ACS concept of 

residency as follows: “The ACS adopted a rather unique concept of 

residency that considers that anyone staying at a sample address 

for more than 2 months to be a current resident of the unit, and 

therefore eligible to be interviewed for the survey. This concept of 

residency is quite different from the usual residence concept used 

by the decennial census and most other demographic surveys. It 

changes the definitions of occupied and vacant units, and allows 

a unit’s status to change more often since it is not dictated by 

occupants’ one and only one “usual” residence. Areas where large 

numbers of people stay for extended periods of time but are 

not their “usual” residence would be most affected by this new 

concept. Of the sites in the 1996 test, Brevard was expected to be 

the one most affected. And it does seem that we are watching the 

movement of “snowbirds” in and out of the county, the subsequent 

change in the vacancy rate reflected in the rising and falling of the 

mail response rates. When units are sitting empty, or are occupied 

by short term vacationers, fewer questionnaires are returned by 

mail.” 50 Love, Dalzell, and Alexander, “Constructing a Major Survey,” 

p. 588.

Table 3.

CAPI Response for the 1996 Continuous Measurement Test

Mailing and response

Total Rockland Brevard Multnomah Fulton

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

CAPI subsample1. . . . . . . . . . . . .  8,694 X 1,5

Late mail returns removed. . . . .  280 3.2 52 3.3 88 209 123 

Deletes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Eligible for interview2. . . . . . . . .  7,748 X 1,370 X 2,7

Interviews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7,291 94.1 1,2

Refusals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other noninterviews. . . . . . . . . .  121 1.6 39 2.8

X Not applicable.

1 CAPI subsample is the denominator for late mail returns removed and deletes rates.

2 Eligible for interview is the demoninator for interviews, refusals, and other noninterviews rates.

Source: Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The 1996 American Community Survey Monthly Response Rates, by Mode,” Table 3.
118 U.S. Census Bureau

(including Houston51); Franklin County, Ohio; and 

Otero County, New Mexico. (Table 4) The selection 

criteria were similar to those used for the 1996 ACS 

test: population size and density, city-style addressing, geographic distribution in relation to the agency’s 12 regional offices, current survey workload, and 

land area. Another criterion was to identify active 

data users who could partner with the agency in evaluating and improving the ACS program. 

By adding Houston, Texas, the ACS tackled its first 

large city. At the time, Houston was a rapidly growing, diverse city with a 1990 population of over 1.6 

million (20 percent African American and 20 percent Hispanic). ACS staff viewed Houston as a prime 

example of the type of respondent reception the ACS 

would experience in large metropolitan areas. 

Of the four new sites, only Otero County, New 

Mexico, contained substantial rural territory. In addition to having to create a current address list for the 

rural part of Otero County, ACS staff had to develop 

procedures for collecting information on the county’s 

Mescalero Apache American Indian reservation and 

to maintain the exact boundary between the rural 

part of Otero County and the city of Alamagordo.52

The survey had one additional test site (Franklin 

County, Ohio, including the city of Columbus) slated 

for inclusion in 1996 but cut it for budgetary reasons. However, during the 1997 test, Franklin County 

served as the first site in which ACS researchers 

collected information from group quarters residents. 

Traditionally, group quarters (e.g., prisons and jails, 

nursing homes, college dormitories, military facilities, 

and group homes) posed data collection challenges 

during decennial censuses because of their diversity 

and the difficulty in identifying and interviewing their 

residents.53

Continuation of the test in the 1996 sites allowed for 

the production of estimates of year-to-year changes. 

Except for Brevard County, Florida,54 the ACS sampled the sites surveyed in 1997 again in 1998, with the 

51 A small section of Houston falls outside of Fort Bend and 

Harris Counties and was not included in the 1997 test. 52 Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community 

Survey: July 1996 Sample Profile,” pp. 5–6. 53 Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community 

Survey: July 1996 Sample Profile,” p. 5. “Minutes of the CMO 

[Continuous Measurement Office] Staff Meeting,” November 14, 

1996, p. 1. The 1997 and 1998 inclusion of group quarters was on an 

“offline” basis as an experiment or informal test. 54 The Census Bureau dropped Brevard County from the test 

because of the resistance of some residents’ to the personal 

nature of some of the questions and the opposition of the county’s 

congressman, David Weldon.

Table 4.

ACS Test Sites by Year: 1996–1999

Year Test site

1996 Fulton County, Pennsylvania1

1996 Rockland County, New York1

1996 Brevard County, Florida1

1996 Multnomah County, Oregon1

1997 Fulton County, Pennsylvania

1997 Rockland County, New York

1997 Brevard County, Florida

1997 Multnomah County, Oregon

1997 Douglas County, Nebraska1

1997 Harris and Fort Bend Counties, Texas1

1997 Franklin County, Ohio1

1997 Otero County, New Mexico1

1998 Fulton County, Pennsylvania

1998 Rockland County, New York

1998 Broward County, Florida1, 2

1998 Multnomah County, Oregon

1998 Kershaw and Richland Counties, South Carolina1

1998 Douglas County, Nebraska

1998 Harris and Fort Bend Counties, Texas

1998 Franklin County, Ohio

1998 Otero County, New Mexico

1999 Fulton County, Pennsylvania

1999 Rockland County, New York

1999 Broward County, Florida

1999 Multnomah County, Oregon

1999 Bronx County, New York1

1999 Lake County, Illinois1

1999 San Francisco County, California1

1999 Pima County, Arizona1

1999 Jefferson County, Alaska1

1999 Tulare County, California1

1999 Upson County, Georgia1

1999 Black Hawk County, Iowa1

1999 Miami County, Indiana1

1999 DeSoto Parish, Louisiana1

1999 Calvert County, Maryland1

1999 Hampden County, Massachusetts1

1999 Douglas County, Nebraska

1999 Harris and Fort Bend Counties, Texas

1999 Franklin County, Ohio

1999 Otero County, New Mexico

1999 Madison County, Mississippi1

1999

Iron, Reynolds, and Washington Counties, 

Missouri1

1999 Flat Head and Lake Counties, Montana1

1999 Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania1

1999 Sevier County, Tennessee1

1999 Starr County, Texas1

1999 Zapata County, Texas1

1999 Petersburg City, Virginia1

1999 Yakima County, Washington1

1999 Ohio County, West Virginia1

1999 Oneida and Vilas Counties, Wisconsin1

1 Site’s first year in the test.

2 Broward County replaced Brevard County.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau 119

addition of Broward County, Florida, and two South 

Carolina counties (Kershaw and Richland). The latter 

two allowed statisticians to compare estimates from 

the ACS to the findings of the 1998 Census dress 

rehearsal, which took place in the same counties.

The 1997 and 1998 tests sampled housing units in 

most sites at 3 percent annually, using a MAF constructed by merging the 1990 Census address control 

file (ACF) and the 1995 USPS Delivery Sequence File 

(DSF, 1997) or the 1997 DSF (1998). The survey team 

increased the sample size to 9 percent in governmental units containing fewer than 1,000 housing units 

to assure sufficient sample size to produce reliable 

estimates.55

The 1997 and 1998 tests revealed a number of important findings. The biggest was finding that the mail 

response rate in the large, demographically diverse 

Houston, Texas, site was notably lower (between 

44 percent and 46 percent) than that in most other 

sites (between 54 percent and 65 percent). Although 

residents in Houston received advance notice of the 

incoming questionnaire and replacement questionnaires, the response rate most closely resembled rural 

Fulton County, Pennsylvania, where residents did not 

receive an advance notice or a replacement mailing.56

However, this was not completely unexpected as 

mail response in large cities tends to be lower than 

in other types of sites for several reasons including: a 

substantial proportion of multiunit dwellings, subpopulations that do not want to interact with government personnel or agencies, significant parts of the 

population with unusual housing arrangements, and 

a large number of non-English-speaking residents. 

As seen in the 1995 and 1996 tests, Brevard County’s 

mail response rate continued to fluctuate with the 

migration of “snowbirds” from northern states to 

Florida for the winter and back to the northern 

states during the warmer months. This same pattern 

appeared in the late spring in Columbus, Ohio, where 

55 U.S. Census Bureau, “ACS: Accuracy of the Data (1997),” p. 1, 

available at <www.census.gov/history/pdf/accuracyofdata-acs1997.

pdf>, accessed December 2023, and U.S. Census Bureau, “ACS: 

Accuracy of the Data (1998),” p. 1, available at <www.census.gov/

history/pdf/accuracyofdata-acs1998.pdf>, accessed December 

2023. 56 Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community 

Survey: November/December 1996 Sample Profile,” Table 1; Susan 

Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community Survey: 

January/February 1997 Sample Review,” Table 1; Susan Love and 

Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community Survey: March/April 

1997 Sample Review,” Table 1; Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The 

American Community Survey: May/June 1997 Sample Review,” 

Table 1; and Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community Survey: 

July/August 1977 Sample Review,” Table 1.

the decline in the mail response rate coincided with 

the end of the semester at Ohio State University.57

PREPARING FOR THE 1999–2002 ACS TEST

In the fall of 1998, the Census Bureau again had to 

modify its plans for the 1999 test due to a budget 

reduction from the requested $38.8 million to $20 

million. Before the budget cut, the plan envisioned:

• Increasing the number of comparison test sites 

from 9 in 1998 to 37 in 1999 with an additional 

8 phase-in sites.58 As previously noted, the ACS 

staff planned for the test sites to provide estimates for small areas such as census tracts. 

ACS statisticians intended to divide the annual 

240,000 housing unit sample among the 45 

comparison and phase-in sites, with each site 

sampled at a 3 percent level. Testing was to cover 

the sites for 3 years, between 1999 and 2001.59

For example, Houston, Texas, contained approximately 782,000 housing units in 2000. An annual 

3 percent sample would amount to 23,460 housing units. Over the course of the 3-year testing 

period, the cumulative sample for Houston would 

come to 70,380 households. This size sample 

would provide reliable estimates that statisticians 

could compare with similar estimates from the 

2000 Census sample for each of Houston’s census tracts. 

• Implementing a national sample of 960,000 

housing units annually beginning in 2000 and 

ending in 2002. The ACS national sample would 

permit comparisons of characteristics from the 

2000 Census sample for states, large cities, and 

large substate areas but would not produce any 

small-area data.

• Postponing the full implementation of the ACS 

from 2002 to 2003 and releasing the first 5-year 

estimates (2003–2007) in 2008.60

57 Susan Love and Gregg Diffendal, “The American Community 

Survey: May/June 1997 Sample Review,” Table 1. 58 The purpose of phase-in sites was to provide Census Bureau 

regional offices that did not contain ACS comparison sites with 

opportunities to train staff in ACS data collection techniques prior 

to national implementation in 2003. Adding the 8 phase-in sites 

to the 37 comparison sites produced a planned total of 45 sites in 

1999. 59 Memorandum from Preston J. Waite to John H. Thompson, 

Dwight P. Dean, and Joel L. Morrison, “American Community Survey 

Test Sites for FY 1999,” June 17, 1997, and U.S. Census Bureau, 

“Objectives for the Original and New ACS Proposals,” n.d. 60 U.S. Census Bureau, “Objectives for the Original and New ACS 

Proposals,” n.d. 
120 U.S. Census Bureau

• Eliminating the long form from the 2010 Census.61

The budget reduction resulted in significant changes 

including, the cancellation of all the large urban 

phase-in sites, and a reduction in the sample sizes in 

all sites. Even these measures were not sufficient to 

keep the project within the new budget, so the staff 

reviewed the original site selection process to gauge 

which sites overlapped with others in terms of general demographic characteristics, such as population 

size, population changes between 1990 and 1996, 

and ease of enumeration. Based on this evaluation, 

the ACS staff decided to eliminate six sites from the 

test, thereby reducing the overall number of sites to 

31. For each dropped site, the group concluded there 

were “other sites that could ... meet the most critical 

characteristics and help us more to determine longrange costs.”62

The Census Bureau’s House Appropriations subcommittee questioned the agency about the ACS’s longterm budget implications. The Census Bureau’s initial 

response noted that it based cost estimates on the 

1990 Census and the 1996–1998 test sites. In a later, 

more complete response, the ACS staff prepared a 

report that incorporated the need for cost model 

information from as large and diverse a group of test 

sites as possible. These sites could provide cost information on the follow-up operation in cities (including 

areas where many households contained no English 

readers) and in rural areas where long distances 

between houses impacted the productivity of field 

representatives. In addition to estimating these costs, 

other cost components, such as the cost of following 

up via telephone and personal visit after differing 

mail response rates, also needed to be assessed.63

The mailout of nearly 14,000 advance letters to the 

sample households in the 31 ACS test sites began in 

late December 1998; a few days later, the households 

received their questionnaires. In early February 1999, 

CATI began calling those addresses that had not 

returned completed questionnaires to the Census 

Bureau. The following month ACS field representatives began knocking on the doors of the 1 in 3 

housing units that had not responded to the mail or 

61 U.S. Census Bureau, “CM Activities That Will Permit the Long 

Form to be Eliminated in 2010,” n.d. 62 Email from Cindy Taeuber to Stanley J. Rolark, Renee 

Jefferson-Copeland, and others, “ACS—Response to SDC 

Questions,” December 11, 1998. The following six sites were dropped 

from the 1999 ACS Test: Boulder County, Colorado; Monroe County, 

Pennsylvania; Richland County, South Carolina; Kershaw County, 

South Carolina; Arlington County, Virginia; Chatham County, North 

Carolina; and Berkeley County, West Virginia. 63 Ibid.

telephone inquiries.64 Data collection and processing 

activities were similar to those used in earlier ACS 

tests.

In late December 1999, the project’s scope expanded 

from the 31 test sites to include the 1,203 counties 

that made up the national decennial census test. 

The monthly mailout increased to more than 74,000 

addresses, including both the comparison sites and 

the national sample.65 During this expansion, the 

Census Bureau weighed whether they could effectively administer the ACS during the 2000 Census. 

In the end, while the agency discovered some bottlenecks (such as too few employees in the telephone 

questionnaire assistance and data keying operations), 

for the most part, the two operations did not interfere 

with one another.66

DATA CAPTURE AND DATA PROCESSING

The ACS 2009 and 2014 publications Design and 

Methodology describes the details of the data capture and data processing operations.67 Salient components of the process include:

• Check-in. This was the process of laser scanning and recording the unique barcode on each 

envelope containing a completed ACS questionnaire. Respondents who replied by mail sent the 

completed questionnaires to the Census Bureau’s 

NPC in Jeffersonville, Indiana, where they were 

checked in. Completed questionnaires also 

arrived at check-in by way of the TQA procedure. 

Each questionnaire contained a toll-free telephone number that respondents could call with 

questions about the ACS or to answer the questionnaire. Trained TQA interviewers conducted 

the ACS interview, completed a paper questionnaire on the respondent’s behalf, and submitted 

the completed form for check-in.68

64 U.S. Census Bureau, “Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey: July 2001,” 

p. 16. 65 U.S. Census Bureau, “Meeting 21st Century Demographic 

Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey: July 

2001” Report 1, “Demonstrating Operational Feasibility,” especially 

Appendix 2, “Workloads and Timing.” The comparison sites were 

the 31 test sites in which the Census Bureau collected ACS data 

between 1999 and 2001 and census long-form data in 2000 in order 

to compare the two datasets. 66 Ibid., pp. 16–20.

67 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009. The Census Bureau 

released an updated version (Version 2.0) in January 2014. 68 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey Operations 

Plan, Release 1: March 2003,” pp. 2122. When completing a 

questionnaire on a respondent’s behalf, the TQA interviewer asked 

for the barcode on the questionnaire to verify against the MAF.
U.S. Census Bureau 121

• Data capture. NPC staff bundled checked-in 

questionnaires into batches of 50 and sent them 

to the keying unit where clerks at desktop workstations entered the information on the questionnaires into the data capture file. NPC sent these 

files to Census Bureau headquarters each night.69

A key-from-image system replaced this method 

in 2007.70

• Telephone Edit Follow-Up. After keying the 

questionnaire information, clerks reviewed the 

resulting data for content completeness and 

coverage to determine if the household required 

a telephone follow-up.71 When a questionnaire 

failed either of these reviews, NPC clerks contacted the respondent’s address by telephone 

and attempted to complete the missing data and 

resolve any errors.72 Approximately one-third of 

all mail returns required follow-up. As improving data quality was one of the main goals of 

ACS operations, these follow-ups helped reduce 

nonsampling errors. In 1999, the Census Bureau 

automated the content and coverage components by substituting a computer algorithm for 

the clerical review and added an automated quality control routine. NPC staff continued contacting respondents by telephone to complete the 

questionnaires.73

• Coding. A number of questions on the ACS questionnaire, including those on race, Hispanic origin, 

place of birth, ancestry, migration, language, 

place of work, and industry and occupation 

allowed respondents to enter their own answers. 

The Census Bureau had to code these responses 

69 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey Operations 

Plan, Release 1: March 2003,” p. 22. 70 Stephanie Baumgardner, “An Evaluation of the Transition to the 

iCADE Data Capture System—Overview Report,” ACS 12-RER-25, 

July 31, 2012. 71 The questionnaire allows for maximum of five respondents. 

Households with more than five residents require telephone followups to complete the questionnaire. 72 Charles H. Alexander, “The American Community Survey: 

Design Issues and Initial Test Results,” paper presented to the XIV 

Annual International Symposium on Methodology Issues, in Hull, 

Quebec, November 5–7, 1997, pp. 2–3, and Charles H. Alexander, 

Scot Dahl, and Lynn Weidman, “Making Estimates From the 

American Community Survey,” paper presented at the 1997 annual 

meeting of the American Statistical Association in Anaheim, 

California, in Proceedings of the Section on Government Statistics 

and Section on Social Statistics, American Statistical Association, 

Alexandria, Virginia, 1997, pp. 88–97. 73 Lynn Weidman and Charles H. Alexander, “Estimation for the 

American Community Survey: Ongoing Work, Planned Work, and 

Issues,” paper presented at the Census Advisory Committee of 

Professional Associations, October 21–22, 1999, p. 5, and U.S. Census 

Bureau, “American Community Survey Operations Plan, Release 1: 

March 2003,” pp. 23–24. 

for the purpose of tabulation. Coding took place 

both at headquarters and the NPC.

° The largest group of variables was race, 

Hispanic origin, ancestry, and language. 

Computer programs accomplished the first 

stage of coding. Keyers entered the responses 

as written on the questionnaires. Then the 

computer matched the values of the variables 

with automated lists of the most common 

responses for race categories, ancestries, and 

languages, and substituted the appropriate 

numerical code for the value. For example, 

the computer compared the response to the 

language question with an automated list of 

380 language categories and assigned the 

appropriate numeric code. When the automated system was unable to assign a code to 

a particular entry, ACS staff referred the case 

to clerical coding for resolution. This operation 

took place at headquarters. 

° The second group of variables was geographical: place of birth, migration, and place 

of work. Geocoding (the assigning of standardized codes to geographic data) had two 

components: an automated component that 

took place at Census Bureau headquarters 

and a clerical component at NPC that handled 

the residual cases that could not be coded 

automatically. 

° The last type of coding focused on industry 

and occupation. This remained a clerical process and took place at NPC.74

• Editing and Imputation. Editing is subjecting 

data to a series of logical steps designed by 

subject-matter experts (SMEs) to identify missing, inconsistent, or implausible responses. For 

example, SMEs might use other information on 

the questionnaire to fill in missing information 

such as inferring marital status from a person’s age or relationship to head of household. 

Imputation is the insertion of one or more estimated answers into a field of a data record that 

previously contained no data or had inconsistent 

or implausible data. For instance, if the ages of 

the individuals in a household were missing from 

a questionnaire but the completed form included 

all the other information requested, the missing 

ages could be “borrowed” from another nearby 

74 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey Operations 

Plan, Release 1: March 2003,” p. 28. 
122 U.S. Census Bureau

household that exhibited similar characteristics.75

For the ACS, both editing and imputation were 

automated procedures. Computer programmers translated the specifications provided by 

population and housing experts into code that 

instructed computers to execute the required 

processing steps. ACS statisticians designed 

edit and imputation procedures to identify and 

resolve a variety of data issues ranging from the 

simple (inserting values when such variables as 

age or sex were missing) to the complex (the edit 

for housing value involved a joint examination of 

reported housing value, property taxes, and other 

variables). The justification for editing and imputing values for missing or incorrect responses was 

both statistical and practical. Well-designed edits 

and imputations can reduce the error of the estimates by eliminating erroneous responses and 

can increase data-user convenience as missing 

or implausible data combinations can complicate 

the analysis of public-use microdata and summary cross-tabulations.76

• Weighting. In most household surveys, weighting 

refers to a series of mathematical adjustments 

used to bring the characteristics of a survey 

sample more into agreement with those of the 

full population by compensating for differences 

in sampling rates across areas, differences 

between the full sample and the interviewed 

sample, and differences between the sample and 

independent estimates of basic demographic 

characteristics.77 For the ACS, the Census Bureau 

used its annual population estimates and housing-unit estimates as the independent estimates. 

Using this, ACS statisticians assigned separate 

weights to each person and each housing unit in 

the sample. Workers used the person weights to 

calculate the estimates of the number of individuals with various characteristics (e.g., race, 

sex, age). They used housing unit weights to 

estimate the number of housing units and households. ACS researchers realized that the use of 

separate weights for persons and households 

would result in inconsistencies between some 

75 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design 

and Methodology, January 2014, pp. 95–96; Alexander, Dahl, and 

Weidman, “Making Estimates,” p. 90; and U.S. Census Bureau, 

“American Community Survey Operations Plan, Release 1: March 

2003,” pp. 28–29. 76 Alexander, Dahl, and Weidman, “Making Estimates,” pp. 90–91.

77 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Design and 

Methodology, Version 2.0, January 2014, and Alexander, Dahl, and 

Weidman, “Making Estimates,” p. 90. 

estimates produced using person weights and 

related estimates using housing unit weights, 

largely due to within-household undercoverage. 

The goal of weighting is to correct for underrepresented groups of individuals or housing units 

in the sample, not for reporting errors.78 Chapter 

5 discusses some of the research used to resolve 

inconsistencies.79

• Tabulation. Tabulation refers to the aggregation and display of data in formats useful to data 

users. As a wide variety of individuals and institutions use census data, it is imperative that it 

meets the legislative, legal, and programming 

needs of all levels of government, businesses, 

nonprofit organizations, and individuals. The 

staff also designed the ACS data products to 

resemble closely those from the decennial census long form, which it replaced.80 Some data 

users devoted substantial resources to designing 

computer programs that incorporated long-form 

census data for particular uses. By designing ACS 

tables to resemble those derived from the census 

long form, the ACS staff tried to minimize the 

disruption of switching to ACS data products.

DATA PRODUCTS 

Data products from the new survey would “at first 

glance [be] the same as the information provided by 

the 1990 long form.”81 However, the Census Bureau 

could only update the long-form data during a decennial census. The virtue of the new ACS survey was 

its ability “to update regularly the information about 

communities that the U.S. census has traditionally 

produced once a decade.”82

78 Alexander, Dahl, and Weidman, “Making Estimates,” pp. 90 

and 95–96. 79 For example, refer to Asiala, Mark E., “Weighting and 

Estimation Research Methodology and Results From the American 

Community Survey Family Equalization Project,” in Proceedings 

of the 2007 Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology 

Research Conference, p. 1, available at <https://nces.ed.gov/

FCSM/pdf/2007FCSM_Asiala-IV-C.pdf>, and Asiala, Mark E., 

“Evaluating Use of Family Equalization for American Community 

Survey Weighting Methodology,” 2011 American Community Survey 

Research and Evaluation Report, ACS11-RER-06, September 11, 

2011, available at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/

working-papers/2011/acs/2011_Asiala_01.pdf>. 80 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey Operations 

Plan, Release 1: March 2003,” pp. 29–30. 81 Charles H. Alexander, “Technical Concerns From Data Users 

About the American Community Survey,” draft report dated May 8, 

1996, p. 5. 82 In this sense, the term communities referred to both 

geographic areas (counties, cities, towns, census tracts, block 

groups, etc.) and demographic groups (racial or ethnic groups, 

occupational groups, age cohorts, etc.).
U.S. Census Bureau 123

The Census Bureau designed the ACS to produce 

the full range of characteristics for both small and 

large geographic areas and demographic groups—

income, poverty, educational attainment, journey 

to work, etc.—in addition to the basic age, race, sex, 

and marital status information found on the census 

short form.83 In July 1997, the agency began releasing 

the final data from the 1996 test. The Census Bureau 

issued the data products in electronic format that 

users could print on demand.84

ACS staff based the design and content of prototype 

ACS data products on the specifications for Summary 

Tape File 3 (STF3) that contained long-form estimates from the 1990 Census. STF3 contained a group 

of detailed tables and four profiles that summarized 

estimates for social characteristics, economic characteristics (divided into two tables), and housing 

characteristics.85 As preparation for the 2000 Census 

intensified, ACS planners understood that ACS data 

products would have to be similar to those data 

users expected from the long form. The 2000 Census 

Summary File 3 (SF3) became the basis for the 

1999 ACS test and the Census 2000 Supplementary 

Survey (C2SS) data products that would allow data 

users to compare ACS and 2000 Census estimates. 

SF3 contained an expanded set of data products 

including new race iterated detailed tables and a collection of geographic comparison tables. The Census 

Bureau released each ACS estimate with its associated 90 percent confidence interval to help data 

users assess ACS data quality.86

One of the major attractions of the ACS was that 

it could produce new data each year. For all states 

and communities that had at least 65,000 residents, 

the ACS would release single-year estimates of 

demographic, housing, social, and economic characteristics. For geographic areas with smaller populations, the ACS sampled too few households to 

provide reliable single-year estimates. However, for 

the first set of data, the agency could pool together 

multiple years of data to create reliable 3-year 

83 Alexander, “Technical Concerns,” p. 2. 

84 Love and Diffendal, “The American Community, Sample 

Review,” July/August 1997, p. 1. A preliminary version of the data 

had been released several months earlier to give data users an 

opportunity to familiarize themselves with the information and 

begin using it. Refer to Love and Diffendal, “The American Survey, 

Sample Review,” March/April 1997, pp. 5–9. 85 Deborah H. Griffin, “Development of American Community 

Survey Data Products,” (draft), January 25, 2012, pp. 2–3. 86 Ibid. Cynthia Taeuber, “American Community Survey Update 

and Demonstration of the 1997 CD-ROM,” paper presented at the 

Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations meeting, 

April 22–23, 1999. Beginning in 2005, margins of error replaced 

confidence intervals.

(20,000-65,000 residents) and 5-year ( less than 

20,000 residents) estimates. After the release of the 

first set of multiyear data, ACS could then release 

subsequent multiyear estimates annually by dropping 

the earliest year of cumulated data and adding the 

most recent year. 

During the early years of ACS development, survey 

researchers did not place much emphasis on the 

“periodic” nature of ACS estimates. Early explanations of using multiyear ACS data often included 

references to conceiving of period estimates as 

approximating the middle year of the 3- or 5-year 

data-collection period. One of the leading spokesmen 

for the ACS, Charles Alexander, realized that it was 

important to alert data users to some of the conceptual issues associated with using multiyear data.87

In 1996, he wrote that, “A three or five year average 

is best interpreted as an estimate pertaining to the 

characteristics of the area as of the middle year of 

the three or five year period. Thus, the 2000–2004 

average should be seen as an estimate centered on 

2002.”88 He continued, “If the area is stable over the 

five years, or if the area is changing at a steady rate 

(even if the change is rapid), the average will approximate the characteristics of the area in the middle 

year, and will be a useful number to use to describe 

that year.”89 However, “If the area’s values fluctuate 

up and down during the 5-year period, for example, 

if there is a 1-year “blip” or if the numbers “bounce 

around,” then no one of the years is adequate as a 

general description of the area to be used several 

years later. In this case, the 2000–2004 average 

should be interpreted as a general description of the 

area for the period of time around 2002, not fully 

reflecting any unusual events in that middle year.”90

This kind of interpretation of ACS multiyear averages 

remained common for several years.91 The question 

87 Charles Alexander was assistant division chief of the 

Demographic Statistical Methods Division. 88 Alexander, “Technical Concerns,” p. 6.

89 Ibid.

90Ibid.

91 In addition to “Technical Concerns,” refer to Charles H. 

Alexander, “Impact of Multiyear Averaging of Data From the 

American Community Survey,” in American Statistical Association 

Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American 

Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, 1996, pp. 644–649; Charles H.

 Alexander, “Recent Developments in the American Community 

Survey,” in American Statistical Association Proceedings of the 

Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 

Alexandria, VA, 1998, pp. 92–100; Charles H. Alexander, “A Discussion 

of the Quality of Estimates From the American Community Survey for 

Small Population Groups,” draft paper dated July 17, 2002; and the 

version of this paper edited by Alfredo Navarro and presented at the 

2003 Joint Statistical Meetings, Section on Survey Research Methods, 

in JSM Procedures, American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA, 

2003, pp. 363–371. 
124 U.S. Census Bureau

of how to interpret ACS multiyear averages was an 

important one for data users. ACS staff devoted 

more than a decade to conceptualizing the Census 

Bureau’s position and explaining its ramifications to 

different groups of data users.

The basic data products from the first ACS test consisted of tables containing the estimated number of 

people in each race, age group, and sex, other tables 

displaying combinations of variables such as race by 

sex, race by age group, mean and median income by 

race, age group, sex, and many more.92 Additionally, 

the ACS also produced “profiles” (summary statistics 

and derived measures) for the main geographic entities in the survey. Taken together, the base tables and 

profiles comprised the major aggregated data products from the first continuous measurement test.93

ACS researchers patterned the second type of data 

product, public use microdata samples (PUMS), after 

the 5 percent PUMS file from the 1990 Census. These 

PUMS are a set of raw data about individuals or housing units that allows users to create custom tables 

not available in the ACS data products.94 These PUMS 

records do not contain any information that can identify a specific housing unit, group quarter, or person. 

Instead, the files only identify region, division, state, 

and public use microdata areas (PUMAs).95

In addition to printed products and CD-ROMs, the 

ACS also disseminated estimates via the newlycreated American FactFinder.96 This is the internetbased information system launched in March 1999 

that made Census Bureau demographic, economic, 

and geographic data available to agency personnel 

and the public. The ACS data products were among 

the first uploaded into the system.97

92 Mary Ellen Davis and Charles H. Alexander, Jr., “The American 

Community Survey: The Census Bureau’s Plan to Provide Timely 21st 

Century Data,” Missouri Library World, Spring, 1997, and Griffin and 

Waite, “American Community Survey Overview,” p. 218. 93 Griffin and Waite, “American Community Survey Overview,” 

p. 218. 94 Davis and Alexander, “Timely 21st Century Data,” p. 1.

95 PUMAs are nonoverlapping areas that partition each state 

into areas containing about 100,000 residents. They are the most 

detailed geographic areas identified in the ACS PUMS files. For 

more information, refer to U.S. Census Bureau, “Brief History of 

Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs),” n.d., available at <https://

www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/reference/puma/puma_history.pdf>. 96 The Census Bureau retired American FactFinder on March 31, 

2020. For more information, refer to the press release at <https://

www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/americanfactfinder-retiring.html>. 97 Titan Systems Corporation, “American FactFinder System 

Requirements Study,” Census 2000 Evaluation R.3.b, June 6, 2002, 

pp. iii–iv.

CONCERNS OF DATA USERS 

As the Census Bureau considered implementing the 

ACS in the 2000 Census, the agency also had to 

confront skepticism and resistance to change among 

at least some key groups of data users. The Census 

Bureau’s director at the time, Martha Farnsworth 

Riche, summarized the issue this way: “The American 

Community Survey did not have many fans when 

I came here. It was seen as a threat by most of the 

other statistical agencies, in that it would conflict with 

data they produced.”98

Even before the Census Bureau began collecting 

any ACS data or released any related data products, 

some federal agencies were aware of the Census 

Bureau’s interest in this methodology through papers 

given by Charles Alexander and others at professional 

conferences and meetings.99 In 1994, the Bureau of 

Transportation Statistics (BTS) sponsored a study on 

the “Implications of Continuous Measurement for the 

Uses of Census Data in Transportation Planning.”100

This study found that, over the previous 30 years, 

state and regional transportation planning agencies 

had become increasingly dependent on census data 

for a wide variety of purposes, such as: benchmarking their own surveys, monitoring trends in travel 

behavior, modeling travel patterns, estimating future 

land-use patterns, implementing federal laws (e.g., 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act), and monitoring the enforcement 

of federal transportation and environmental regulations.101 The members of the transportation planning 

panel which prepared the analysis acknowledged 

the “excellent partnership” that existed “between the 

Census Bureau and the transportation community.” 

However, the authors cautioned that before they 

could fully embrace the use of continuous measurement, the Census Bureau would have to assure them 

that that it had fully addressed “issues of timeliness, currency of data, program flexibility, cost, and 

impacts on small-area data.” Any radical change, 

such as eliminating the census long form, “must 

be viewed objectively, studied systematically, and 

98 Oral History Interview, January 28, 1998, p. 12.

99 Charles “Chip” Alexander was assistant division chief of the 

Demographic Statistical Methods Division until his accidental death 

in 2002. 100 U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, “Implications of Continuous Measurement for the Uses 

of Census Data in Transportation Planning, Government Printing 

Office,” Washington, DC, 1996. 101 “Implications of Continuous Measurement,” pp. 5, 8–9.
U.S. Census Bureau 125

implemented in such a fashion as to minimize risks to 

stakeholders.”102

The BTS was not the only group of data users to 

urge the Census Bureau to proceed with caution 

and not to implement continuous measurement 

before thorough and rigorous testing. In the wake of 

actual and perceived missteps in the 1990 Census, 

the Census Bureau hired the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) to create two study panels to advise 

the agency on its planning and testing for the 2000 

Census. Both panels praised the agency for its efforts 

to “reengineer” the decennial census, and each noted 

that continuous measurement needed more testing 

and evaluation before it could successfully replace 

the long-form questionnaire in the 2000 Census. 

Writing in late 1994, one panel concluded that “the 

current program of research and development for 

continuous measurement is moving much too quickly 

into an operational phase when key issues about the 

concept remain to be addressed.” Panel members 

expressed concern about costs, data quality, user 

needs, and relationship to ongoing surveys. In the 

panel’s view, the Census Bureau’s focus on, 

“ . . . a series of operational tests that rapidly increase 

in scope and cost, leading up to a final decision at the 

end of 1997 on whether to drop the census long form 

from the 2000 Census and replace it with continuous 

measurement . . . is much too ambitious in our view, 

given all of the questions that need to be 

answered . . . ”103

In the mid-1990s, members of the Census Bureau’s 

Advisory Committee of the Professional Associations 

echoed the misgivings of the NAS panels, particularly “the feasibility or desirability of substituting 

a CM system for the traditional census long-form 

questionnaire for the 2000 Census.” Committee 

member Richard Kulka of the American Statistical 

Association stated that calling Census Bureau proposals to replace the census long form with continuous measurement controversial “would be somewhat 

of an understatement.” According to Kulka, the wider 

statistical and demographic communities had not 

reached anything like consensus on this issue.104

102 “Implications of Continuous Measurement,” p. 19. 103 Barry Edmonston and Charles Schultze (eds.), Modernizing the 

U.S. Census, Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 1995, 

pp. 124–25. 104 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the Census Advisory 

Committee of the Professional Associations,” held at the Census 

Bureau on April 27–28, 1995, pp. 33–34.

Between the early and late 1990s, continuous measurement went from one of many programs the 

Census Bureau was investigating and evaluating to 

one of the highest priorities on its agenda. However, 

by late 1995, Census Bureau executives decided 

that they lacked the time and resources to test and 

evaluate an ACS prototype before using it to replace 

the sample questionnaire in the 2000 Census. 

Additionally, the Census Bureau had yet to convince 

key data-user groups within the federal statistical 

community of the efficacy of the ACS and the benefits of the data. A number of data users were relieved 

after the Census Bureau postponed full implementation until after the 2000 Census. They believed that 

continuing to test the ACS and compare its results 

to the 2000 Census long-form data provided better opportunities to evaluate ACS data quality and 

to examine similarities and differences between the 

two data sets on both national and local geographic 

levels. 

Users of small-area data were particularly concerned 

that ACS data products would not provide the same 

level of detail with similar quality as the long-form 

data. They had seen their hopes dashed in the 1960s 

and 1970s, when the Census Bureau shelved proposals for a mid-decade census that included tract-level 

data in favor of data-collection programs that provided useable data for urban and metropolitan areas 

but little tract or rural data (Chapter 1). The Herriot 

and Johnson proposals from the late 1980s promised to provide tract-level data for at least 1 year for 

each state during the decade between censuses but 

offered a more expansive set of data for larger cities 

and metropolitan areas (Chapters 1 and 2). Rural and 

small-area data users feared a possible loss of longform census data altogether coupled with uncertain 

funding of the ACS. With no long form, if the ACS lost 

funding, these users ran the risk of having no data at all. 

While fears of inadequate funding continued through 

the end of the 1990s and beyond, small-area data 

users also were concerned about the quality and reliability of ACS estimates for rural areas. Responding 

to this concern, the Census Bureau hired Westat, a 

research company, to convene a conference of knowledgeable academics, state government officials, and 

representatives of professional associations. 

DATA USER CONFERENCES

The conference took place on May 14 and 15, 1998. 

Attendees included Census Bureau staff members, 
126 U.S. Census Bureau

representatives of other federal government agencies, and individuals representing minority concerns. 

Its primary purpose was to discuss the data uses and 

policy implications of ACS data for rural areas, ACS 

survey design and its capacity to meet user needs 

for small geographic areas and populations, potential 

design options, and to provide a forum for experts to 

express their views.105

The group concluded that the ACS planning process 

had been open, extensive, and responsive to data 

user needs. In particular, “they saw no evidence of 

an antirural bias in the design of the ACS.”106 While 

conference participants supported the ACS in general, their recommendations included a number of 

improvements: 

• Ensure that the master address file accounted for 

the large number of post office boxes, rural route 

numbers, and general delivery addresses in rural 

communities. 107

• Recognize the importance of, and be highly 

responsive to, its user community by providing 

data users with training materials and presentations, survey objectives and uses, and encouraging the use of data averaged over time. 

• Become sensitive to the “political” implications of 

the ACS stemming from the likely use of the data 

for fund allocation and program planning and be 

prepared to strongly support the survey’s methodology and the quality of its products.

• Present ACS respondents with multilingual 

response options including questionnaires in several languages and telephone and personal visit 

follow-up interviewers who could interact with 

respondents in their own languages. 

• Establish an ACS advisory group similar to the 

decennial census advisory committee that could 

assist the Census Bureau in dealing with the many 

technical issues that remained, offer advice on 

prioritization of research projects, and lend credence to the ACS’s data collection methodology 

and the quality of its data products.108

About 4 months after the rural areas conference, the 

National Academy of Sciences organized a workshop 

105 Graham Kalton, Daniel B. Levine, Joseph Waksberg, and John 

Helmick, “The American Community Survey: The Quality of Rural 

Data: Report of a Conference,” June 29, 1998, p. 2. 106 “Quality of Rural Data,” pp. 2–3 and 5. 107 “Quality of Rural Data,” p. 20. 108 “Quality of Rural Data,” p. 20.

to consider the benefits and challenges of replacing the census long form with the ACS. Held on 

September 13, 1998, this gathering brought together 

academic and policy experts, government officials, 

experienced data users, and Census Bureau staff 

to discuss the Census Bureau’s efforts to develop a 

research agenda on methodological issues relating 

to the ACS. The Committee on National Statistics, 

a component of the NAS, organized the workshop, 

managed the preparation of background papers by 

statisticians and experienced data users, and prepared the summary for publication.109

The workshop addressed six methodological issues:

• Combining information across geographical 

areas.

• Combining information across time.

• Using ACS estimates as inputs to funding allocation formulas.

• Applying weights to account for nonresponse 

and undercoverage.

• Considering issues relating to sample and questionnaire design.

• Analyzing the effects of switching from census 

long-form estimates to ACS estimates on various 

long-form applications.110

The Census Bureau did not ask the panel for formal 

recommendations, but members did offer suggestions on the need for further research. As more ACS 

data became available over time, the Census Bureau 

could try and assess alternative approaches to the 

issues raised above against each other and against 

the upcoming 2000 Census. Some of this research 

and its results are described in Chapters 4 and 5. 

PROMOTING THE ACS

Promoting the ACS is an ongoing process involving at 

least two distinct target audiences. The first consists 

of survey respondents who fall into the ACS sample in 

any given month. The Census Bureau addressed this 

group with a series of mailing packages that stressed 

the mandatory nature of the survey and encouraged 

respondents to participate voluntarily by completing the questionnaire and returning it to the Census 

109 National Research Council, Committee on National Statistics, 

“The American Community Survey: Summary of a Workshop,” 

National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001. 110 “American Community Survey Workshop,” p. 5.
U.S. Census Bureau 127

Bureau. The second audience consists of data users 

ranging from the inexperienced to the statistically 

sophisticated. For this group the promotional material emphasized the value, timeliness, and quality of 

the data. During the testing phase, the ACS produced 

promotional handouts, brochures, and presentations 

and a limited number of printed and electronic data 

products, together with training in their use. 

In 1996, the first year of ACS testing there was “little 

in the way of public complaint to the Bureau” about 

the test in three of the four sites.111 Brevard County, 

Florida, was the exception. In June 1996, Census 

Bureau officials instructed CATI and CAPI interviewers to respond to objections by informing householders to direct their complaints to their congressional 

representatives.112 The bulk of the complaints seem 

to have involved either the “personal nature of the 

questions or the legal requirement to participate in 

the survey.”113 Responding to the objections of some 

of his constituents, Representative David Weldon, 

representing the 15th Congressional District of Florida 

(which included southern Brevard County), looked 

into the possibility of making response to the ACS 

test voluntary.114 Since the ACS remained a mandatory survey, Representative Weldon’s initiative did not 

pan out. However, this issue continues to reemerge 

periodically during normal consideration of the 

Census Bureau’s budget.

Over the next several months, letters of complaint 

from ACS test respondents in Brevard County continued to arrive at the Census Bureau via Representative 

Weldon’s office. Responding to Congressional correspondence took a substantial amount of staff time 

and involved senior staff as well.115 ACS staff leader, 

Lawrence McGinn, met with the Census Bureau’s chief 

of Congressional Affairs to try to “resolve the problem of [Rep.] Weldon’s office telling ACS respondents 

they don’t have to cooperate on the survey.”116

111 U.S. General Accounting Office, “The American Community 

Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues,” GAO-02-956R, 

September 30, 2002, p. 23. 112 U.S. Census Bureau, Continuous Measurement Office, “Minutes 

of the CMO Staff Meeting,” June 13, 1996, p. 1. 113 “Accuracy and Timeliness Issues,” p. 23.

114 “Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” June 13, 1996, p. 1. At the 

next CMO staff meeting, an ACS staffer mentioned that one of 

Congressman Weldon’s staff members was telling respondents that 

they did not have to answer the test questions. Refer to “Minutes, 

CMO Staff Meeting,” June 20, 1996, p. 1. 115 “Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” September 5, 1996, p. 1. The 

CMO minutes noted that dropping Brevard County from the 1997 

test had been discussed at a recent associate directors’ meeting. 116 “Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” September 26, 1996, p.1.

About 6 months later, the chief of the Demographic 

Statistical Methods Division, Preston J. Waite, met 

with Representative Weldon to discuss the test. 

Weldon was not a user of census data but was 

impressed with the 1990 Census data that Waite 

showed him. However, Weldon remained concerned 

about his constituents’ complaints and was “not 

happy with the ACS.” Census Bureau officials were 

aware that they would have to decide whether to 

keep the test in Brevard County or move it further 

south to Broward County.117 By the summer of 1997, 

the ACS staff decided to drop Brevard County at the 

end of February 1998.118 They confirmed this decision in November 1997 and notified Brevard County 

officials in early January 1998 that the ACS test would 

end in their county the following month.119

Concerns about respondent privacy, government 

snooping, and mandatory response surfaced sporadically in connection with the census long form and the 

ACS. Census Bureau interviewers were often successful in obtaining responses after they explained the 

purpose of the ACS and the uses to which public and 

private organizations made of the data.

As she was leaving the Census Bureau in January 

1998, Director Martha Riche emphasized that, “The 

most important program we are marketing right 

now is the American Community Survey.” Director 

Riche also realized that a successful ACS “will create a large annual constituency as opposed to a 

large once-a-decade constituency . . . ” Winning the 

support of other government agencies was high on 

her to-do list. She recognized that successful testing and implementation of this survey would require 

substantial funding from Congress and vocal support from Census Bureau stakeholders. In her oral 

history interview, she noted that ACS planners and 

researchers invited “representatives from other government agencies . . . to work with us so they would 

get what they needed . . . ” She concluded that, “as 

a result [of the Census Bureau’s outreach] the statistical community is pretty committed to this survey.” 

Outreach to local communities by participating in 

“town meetings around the country” was also high on 

her agenda. She believed that the ACS “was a winner 

because people understand its benefits right away.” 

Her efforts to reach out to public and private sector 

data users were motivated in part by the knowledge 

117 “Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” April 10, 1997, p.1.

118 “Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” August 28, 1997, p.1.

119 “Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” November 20, 1997, p.1, and 

“Minutes, CMO Staff Meeting,” January 8, 1998, p.1.
128 U.S. Census Bureau

that stakeholders feared that a loss of funding might 

imperil both ACS and the census long form, leaving 

them without any census-type small-area data.120

Much of the available documentation of the Census 

Bureau’s promotional program for the early years of 

the ACS consists of draft marketing plans, accounts 

of or plans for promotional activities in specific test 

sites, and presentations at professional meetings, 

government agencies, and advisory committees. 

The extent to which ACS promotional plans were 

discussed and approved at the highest levels of 

the Census Bureau’s chain of command remains 

unclear. One ACS staff member recalled that Director 

“Barbara Bryant generally knew what we were doing, 

but we were not particularly on her radar since things 

seemed to be going okay.”121 Director Martha Riche 

had a marketing background and was more interested in the plans for the ACS. ACS senior staff had 

“lots of informal conversations” with Director Riche 

about promoting the ACS, “most of which were 

undocumented.”122

In mid-1994, a small group of Census Bureau employees, under the direction of Cynthia Taeuber, began 

putting together the components of the ACS marketing plan.123 Taeuber’s team worked closely with 

the Census Bureau’s State Data Centers to develop 

examples of ways local governments and private 

companies could use ACS data at the community 

level. Examples included selecting the most appropriate locations for schools in growing areas and 

responding to chamber of commerce complaints of 

outdated census information interfering with banks’ 

efforts to locate new branches and automated teller 

machines. Taeuber wove these local references into 

ACS presentations she and her staff gave at community meetings to encourage response to ACS tests 

and to counter local resistance. For example, working 

with the Nebraska State Data Center and members 

of Senator Robert Kerrey’s (NE-D) staff, Taeuber’s 

group explained why respondents should complete 

the ACS questionnaires. Kerrey’s staff then explained 

120 U.S. Census Bureau, oral history interview with Martha 

Farnsworth Riche, conducted on January 28, 1998, pp. 12–13, 

available at <www.census.gov/history/pdf/Riche_Oral_History.

pdf>, accessed July 25, 2011. 121 Personal email from Cynthia (Taeuber) McIlwain, dated July 2, 

2016. Barbara Bryant served as director of the Census Bureau from 

1989 to 1993. 122 Ibid. Cynthia Taeuber headed the marketing effort for the 

ACS from 1994 through 2004. She kept notes of many of the 

meetings and decisions in her green notebooks, which she “carried 

everyplace.” I have not been able to locate those notebooks. 123 Cynthia Taeuber was senior program advisor to the deputy 

director.

to him the benefits Nebraska could obtain using 

ACS data. Kerrey became one early supporter of the 

ACS. Together with members of the Congressional 

Affairs Office, Taeuber’s staff arranged meetings 

with important congressional staffers to have subject-matter experts explain the benefits of ACS data 

for programs they were already supporting. With 

the assistance of the Public Affairs Office, Taeuber 

reached out to print and electronic journalists as ACS 

stakeholders themselves but also as intermediaries 

to convey local stories to political actors and their 

staffs.124

The earliest extant marketing plan was the product of 

a meeting in the spring of 1995 between the chief of 

the Census Bureau’s Marketing Services Office, John 

Kavaliunas, and a long-serving member of the Census 

Bureau’s advisory committee from the American 

Marketing Association, Edward Spar.125 This plan consisted of eight components:

1. A rudimentary segmentation of data users.

2. Creation of a marketing office within the ACS office.

3. Development of a user-friendly set of data 

products.

4. Risk minimization.

5. Partnerships with public and private data users and 

vendors. Data product pricing. 

6. Partnerships with data vendors and development of 

training classes taught by Census Bureau staff.

7. Implementation schedule with annual goals extending from 1995 through 2000.

They fleshed out each component with further detail 

to give the reader a sense of how it would work. 

For example, the plan divided data users into three 

groups (congress and federal agencies, state and 

local governments, and university researchers and 

private business) and briefly described how each 

might use ACS data. The new marketing office would 

then develop a potential customer list and form 

groups from the list in order to understand customer 

response to the survey and to the types of data 

products it could produce. Creating ongoing groups 

of data users to test and report on product usability 

would also facilitate interaction between ACS staff 

and customers. The marketing office would also 

construct a customer information system to track 

124 Personal email from Cynthia (Taeuber) McIlwain, dated July 2, 

2016. 125 “Marketing Plan for Continuous Measurement (CM),” n.d., 

Spring 1995, and personal notes from a discussion with Edward 

Spar, April 26, 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau 129

outreach efforts and follow up customer requests. 

The office would be responsible for creating a series 

of clearly understandable promotional materials for 

data users with different levels of statistical sophistication. Another element of the marketing plan 

involved minimizing risk by developing and reviewing 

risk management plans, conducting market research 

throughout the survey and product development process, and maintaining strong communications with 

such major stakeholders as congress, federal statistical agencies, and state and local governments. Some 

federal agencies might conclude that implementation 

of the ACS could imperil the existence of the special-purpose surveys they sponsored; to minimize 

this possibility, the marketing plan urged the Census 

Bureau to organize a special outreach effort to the 

federal statistical community, and the research community more broadly, to reassure them and to initiate 

ongoing partnerships. 

A revised version of this plan, dated June 1995, reorganized and expanded existing components of the 

earlier plan and added a few new components, such 

as expanded customer segmentation, identification 

of emerging markets and creating demand, enhanced 

products and services, and budget.126

Largely because of budget constraints, implementation of the marketing program took substantially 

longer than the ACS staff anticipated. To be sure, 

Census Bureau personnel had been giving presentations on continuous measurement and the ACS 

for several years. Beginning in December 1992, 

Charles Alexander wrote a series of papers describing components of the ACS and the research that 

would undergird the program. The goal of the first 

ten of these papers was to convince Census Bureau 

senior staff of the feasibility and viability of the ACS 

concept.127 In August 1993, Alexander presented an 

overview of the research supporting an ACS alternative to the census long form at the annual meeting 

of the American Statistical Association. From then 

on, Census Bureau staff prepared a growing number 

of papers and presentations on the theory, methodology, planning, and testing of data collection and 

tabulation and product preparation. They presented 

this research to meetings of professional associations, 

congressional staff, federal agencies, public and 

126 U.S. Census Bureau, “Marketing Plan for Continuous 

Measurement, June 12, 1995. 127 These papers were part of the Continuous Measurement 

Series, Nos. 1–20. Alexander wrote the first ten between December 

1992 and October 1993.

private statisticians and demographers, and members 

of the Census Bureau’s advisory committees. This 

kind of outreach was quite different from that needed 

to persuade the American people to complete and 

return ACS questionnaires. 

Outreach efforts to state, county, and municipal 

officials proceeded along the path that Taeuber 

pioneered. For example, in the spring of 1995, 

headquarters staff and employees of the Seattle 

Regional Office set up a federal-state partnership in 

Multnomah County, Oregon, to utilize a state data file 

similar to that needed in the 1996 CM test. By coordinating the efforts of headquarters staff, regional 

office geographic staff, and the Oregon Metropolitan 

Planning Office, the Census Bureau prevented the 

duplication of expensive work and assured that they 

could complete geographic preparation for the 1996 

ACS test on time.128

When the ACS data collection test began in the 

fall of 1995, the ACS had no formal outreach staff. 

Taeuber’s team was an informal grouping. As a result, 

the Census Bureau initially relied on a combination 

of pamphlets, brochures, and community presentations together with press releases and free media to 

publicize the new survey.129 In fact, the agency did not 

hire the first formal outreach staff member until late 

1996.130 In early 1997, the Marketing Services Office 

assigned several of its staff members to work on 

promotional brochures, single page fact sheets, and 

other materials.131

By January 1997, the Census Bureau prepared 

schedules for annual ACS presentations, which they 

updated as needed. In late February, the tentative 

schedule contained 17 meetings with professional 

associations; congressional and federal agency staff; 

census advisory committees; state data center representatives; the mayor of Houston, TX; community 

128 Memorandum from Martha Farnsworth Riche, director, to 

Larry McGinn (CM Staff), Linda Franz (Geography Division), Brian 

Monaghan (Field Division), and Wendy Holly and Rick Campbell 

(Seattle Regional Office), “Good Work for Oregon,” May 25, 1995. 129 U.S. General Accounting Office, “The American Community 

Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues,” GAO-02-956R, Sept. 30, 

2002, p.24. 130 U.S. Census Bureau, Continuous Measurement Office, 

“Minutes of the CMO Staff Meeting,” Jan. 9, 1997, p. 1. The minutes 

state that Cynthia Taeuber was recently assigned as a special 

assistant to Preston Jay Waite (“Jay”), chief of the Demographic 

Statistical Methods Division, “to handle the publicity and outreach 

for the ACS.” 131 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the Census Advisory 

Committee of the Professional Associations,” October 23, “Quality 

of Rural Data,” pp. 20–24, 1997, and email from Cheryl V. Chambers, 

chief, Communications Management and Support Branch, American 

Community Survey Office, July 26, 2011.
130 U.S. Census Bureau

groups; and an ACS product development group.132

ACS staff also organized workshops in the test site 

cities to teach local elected officials, planners, and 

local government agency employees how to use ACS 

data.133 Workshops ranged from single presentations 

on the development and future of the ACS, a comparison of the ACS and 2000 Census questionnaires, to 

lengthy discussions of data tables and PUMS files and 

demonstrations of their uses.134

Once the Census Bureau identified the counties 

to be included in the 1999 ACS test, the ACS staff 

expanded its outreach efforts. By late winter of 1997, 

with the representative and senators from each of the 

test sites, ACS staff began a campaign to educate 

them about the benefits of participating. The staff 

arranged meetings with national, state, and local officials to explain when and where the test would take 

place; what information the survey would collect and 

how the Census Bureau would protect the confidentiality of the information; and the various uses for 

resulting statistics such as for planning and evaluation studies, grant applications, and promotion. ACS 

staff also identified at least one experienced data 

user at each site to participate with Census Bureau 

statisticians and demographers in the evaluation of 

the test data.135

As the Census Bureau developed and refined marketing and promotional plans for the ACS, it solicited 

feedback from respondents, data users, community 

leaders, and other stakeholders. On several occasions, members of the Census Bureau’s advisory committees heard presentations on the status of ACS promotion and offered suggestions. They also provided 

132 Thanos Theodoropoulos, “Tentative Schedule of ACS External 

Activities,” February 25, 1997. 133 U.S. General Accounting Office, “The American Community 

Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues,” GAO-02-956R, Sept. 30, 

2002, p.24. 134 Lawrence S. McGinn, “The Revised American Community 

Survey,” PowerPoint presentation given at the ACS Product 

Development Group Meeting on February 19, 1997; Charles H. 

Alexander, “Comparison of the ACS to the 2000 Long Form,” 

PowerPoint presentation given at the ACS Product Development 

Group Meeting on February 19, 1997; and Preston J. Waite, “The 

American Community Survey: 1997 and Beyond,” PowerPoint 

presentation given at the 2000 Census Advisory Committee 

Meeting in March 1997. 135 Tom Coughlin to Cindy Taeuber, “C[ontinuous] M[easurement] 

Sites, FY 1999, Sorted by State/County,” February 27, 1997; 

U.S. Census Bureau, “1999 Counties for ACS-2, Sites Are Subject 

to Funding Levels,” March 3, 1997; and Cindy Taeuber, “Uses of 

American Community Survey Data by Local and State Governments 

and Special Population Groups,” March 6, 1997.

a sounding board for the agency to test elements of 

promotional campaigns before a receptive audience. 

At the October 1997 advisory committee meeting, the 

Census Bureau presented its plans. Preston J. Waite, 

the senior manager responsible for getting the ACS 

off the ground, emphasized that congressional and 

budgetary constraints made it impossible to assume 

the continued funding of new projects such as the 

ACS. As he pointed out, “Marketing these programs, 

increasing public awareness, and developing a constituency of users were essential to the survey’s longterm future.”136

Two years later, in October 1999, ACS representatives revisited the 1997 fall meeting of the advisory 

committee of professional associations to describe 

a revised version of the marketing plan. The version 

considered at the 1999 advisory committee meeting consisted of three chronological phases. The 

already completed phase 1 covered the years 1996 

through 1998 and focused on identifying decision 

makers’ needs, the types of ACS data products that 

could provide for those needs, and raising decision 

makers’ awareness of the survey. The second phase 

extended from 1999 through 2002. In addition to 

expanding awareness of the ACS, the plan sought to 

build support for the survey by increasing the usefulness of ACS data products, developing applications 

for public and private sector use, and beefing up 

the education and training programs. The last phase 

of the marketing plan covered 2003 through 2010 

and further emphasized the importance of training 

decisionmakers on the uses of ACS data, particularly 

through the use of annually updated information to 

analyze demographic and economic trends, and the 

application of statistical modeling and geographic 

information systems to get the most out of the newly 

available data.137

One element common to all three phases of the plan 

was ensuring sufficient funding to test aspects of the 

survey or to implement it nationwide. Members of the 

advisory committees made useful suggestions, such 

136 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the Census Advisory 

Committee of the Professional Associations,” October 23–24, 1997, 

p. 42. 137 Colleen D. Flannery, “Strategic Marketing for the American 

Community Survey: Are We on the Right Track?,” presented at 

the Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations, 

October 21–22, 1999.
U.S. Census Bureau 131

as the need to market the survey’s data products to 

the widest possible audience, to specify the steps to 

be taken in each phase to achieve widespread acceptance and use of the ACS, and to revise the plan to 

include measurable outcomes within specified time 

frames in order to assess the success or failure of the 

plan.138

138 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the Census Advisory 

Committee of the Professional Associations,” October 21–22, 1999, 

pp. 16–18.

The marketing effort for the ACS developed significantly between 1995 and 1999. However, inadequate 

funding hampered its implementation for at least part 

of this time. It was not until after 2000 that senior 

Census Bureau staff agreed that the ACS needed a 

more effective marketing program and took the steps 

necessary to bring it about.
This page is intentionally blank.
U.S. Census Bureau 133

Chapter 4. Research, Evaluation, and Outreach (2001–2004)

INTRODUCTION

For nearly 140 years, the Census Bureau sought to 

provide communities with data more frequently than 

once every 10 years. Previous attempts to deliver 

data on an annual basis had resulted in data only for 

the nation as a whole, large states, and large metropolitan areas. Further, repeated attempts to win 

approval and funding for a mid-decade census fell 

flat when the projected costs proved too high. 

In the late 1990s, the Census Bureau explored the 

possibility of providing timely data nationwide by 

replacing the decennial census long form survey with 

a monthly survey called the American Community 

Survey (ACS). In 2000, to test proposed methods for 

the survey, the Census Bureau conducted the Census 

2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS) nationwide 

and in several counties already included in the ACS. 

Statistical analyses of data from the C2SS and ACS 

tests demonstrated that the ACS was an acceptable 

substitute for the long form in terms of statistical 

reliability and data quality. When a number of data 

users began praising the quality of the estimates 

released from the test survey, the list of stakeholders 

announcing their support for the ACS also increased. 

The users praise for the quality of ACS estimates tempered the criticism of their lower statistical reliability 

in comparison to the long form. 

As part of their broad program of outreach for the 

ACS program, the Census Bureau communicated 

with every member of Congress and provided them 

information about the survey and, through informal 

visits with congressional staff and presentations to 

groups of congressional staff representing different 

interests, showed them the value of up-to-date data 

for their districts. Just like the public at-large, representatives and senators learned of the detailed yearly 

data that would be available to them if they approved 

and funded the nationwide implementation of the 

ACS. Congress did just that by 2004 and the Census 

Bureau expanded the ACS to its full sample size.

CENSUS 2000 SUPPLEMENTARY SURVEY 

DEMONSTRATES OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY 

AND SURVEY QUALITY 

Background

In order to test whether it was possible to implement the ACS nationwide concurrent with collecting data through the decennial census, the Census 

Bureau conducted the C2SS. This test survey greatly 

expanded on previous Bureau experiments evaluating data collection and data processing methods 

proposed for the ACS. Since 1995, the Census Bureau 

had tested the ACS’ mixed mode method of gathering data with mailed surveys, computer-assisted 

telephone interviews (CATI), and computer-assisted 

personal interviews (CAPI) in select counties across 

the country. By 1998, the Census Bureau expanded 

its testing to 36 counties and the results were promising.1 The remaining question was whether the 

Census Bureau could mail out enough forms, field 

enough interviewers, and process a large number of 

responses on a sustained, year-to-year basis to provide the timely data promised by the ACS. 

In 2000, the Census Bureau greatly expanded the 

scope of its testing by moving ACS operations into 

1,239 counties selected to create a nationally representative sample of 866,000 housing units.2 The 

resulting C2SS included the 36 counties tested 

since 1998 and 1,203 counties new to the survey, 

thereby making it the largest household survey ever 

1 CATI and CAPI were conducting only with a subset of 

nonrespondents. Refer to Chapter 3 for more information on the 

C2SS. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs-Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 1: 

Demonstrating Operational Feasibility," July 2001, pp. 3, 14, and 

U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American Community 

Survey, April 2009, pp. 2–3. 
134 U.S. Census Bureau

conducted by the Census Bureau (Chapter 3).3 The 

C2SS used the mixed-mode survey methods used in 

previous ACS tests: initial data collection via mailed 

questionnaires (the “mailout/mailback” operation) 

and follow up with a subset of nonresponding households using telephone and in-person interviews. 

Each month, the Census Bureau drew an independent sample and then collected data for that sample 

over the course of 3 months. At the end of 1 year of 

C2SS operations, the Census Bureau completed the 

C2SS on time and under budget despite the five-fold 

increase in sample size over 1999.4

Operational Feasibility

The operational results of the C2SS demonstrated 

that the Census Bureau could effectively implement 

the ACS nationwide. The survey had obtained acceptable mail response and mailable address rates.5

Census Bureau employees conducted telephone 

interviews on schedule and successfully reduced 

the workload for in-person follow-up visits. Further, 

employees also completed personal visit interviews 

on schedule and achieved a high rate of response. 

In fact, the C2SS total survey response rate (for all 

modes) was 96.5 percent and survey response rates 

3 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, p. 3, and Nancy M. Gordon, 

U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Supplementary Survey: An 

Operational Feasibility Test,” July 2001, slide 3, accessed January 24, 

2013, at <www.census.gov/acs/www/library/by_year/2001/>. To 

create a nationwide sample representative of most aspects of the 

American populace, the Census Bureau created primary sampling 

units (PSUs) out of selected counties, county equivalents (such 

as independent cities in Virginia), and portions of counties with 

large populations or covering large geographic areas. For more 

information about the process by which PSUs were created, refer 

to U.S. Census Bureau, Accuracy of the Data, available at <https://

www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/accuracy/

accuracy00_C2SS.pdf>, accessed December 30, 2012.

4 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, p. 16. Further, part of the C2SS 

was conducted at the same time as the 2000 Census. Thus, for the 

first few months of the C2SS, decennial operations preoccupied 

many of the Census Bureau’s most experienced field managers and 

lured away many potential interviewers. However, initial backlogs 

in data processing and handling forms in those first few months 

proved manageable as the Census Bureau adjusted staffing levels 

and cleared the backlogs.

5 In addition to the mail response rate, another measure of 

the effectiveness of the mailout/mailback method is the mailable 

address rate. Similar to the mail response scenario, a low rate of 

mailable (or complete) addresses would increase the costs of the 

survey because it would increase the number of addresses requiring 

personal interviews. By the end of the first year of operations, the 

mailable address rate for the sample addresses in the combined 

C2SS and 2000 comparison counties was relatively high at 95.5 

percent. In other words, 95.5 percent of the addresses in the sample 

were deemed complete and, thus, mailable. For the ACS, the Census 

Bureau defined complete addresses as having either the house 

number, street name, and ZIP Code or a complete rural route, box 

number, and ZIP Code. It considered Post Office boxes and other 

rural style addresses incomplete. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, p. 17.

were high across the nation in the test site counties.6

The components of the total survey response rate 

are the mail response rate and the CATI and CAPI 

response rates:

• Mail Response Rate. The C2SS met the goal of 

achieving a mail response rate of over 50 percent: 

the mail response rate was 51.9 percent.7 This 

was important for two reasons. First, in order to 

match the census long form in terms of statistical reliability, the ACS would have to sample an 

estimated 3 million households a year.8 Second, 

for Congress to approve and fund the ACS, the 

Census Bureau had to demonstrate that it could 

deliver data in a cost effective manner and stay 

within budget. Therefore, the bulk of responses 

needed to come from mailout/mailback rather 

than the more costly telephonic or in-person 

interviews.9 For this reason, the ACS would only 

conduct follow-up interviews of a subsample of 

households that did not respond by mail. Thus, 

6 The total survey response rate is the ratio of completed 

interviews to the sample cases that were eligible to be interviewed. 

If survey response rates are low or are lower in certain areas or for 

certain population groups, the data may not provide an accurate 

picture of the entire population. Of all 1,239 counties included in 

the survey, Bronx County, New York, had the lowest total survey 

response rate lower at 91 percent. All other counties had a total 

response rate of 95 percent or more. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, 

pp. 14–19 and 23. 

7 The mail response rate is the ratio of all completed mail returns 

relative to the mailout universe. In comparison, the Census Bureau’s 

2001 estimates for initial mail response rate for the 2000 Census 

long form was 53.9 percent. U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st 

Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American 

Community Survey, Report 2: Demonstrating Survey Quality," May 

2002, pp. 10, 16, and U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century 

Demographic Data Needs-Implementing the American Community 

Survey, Report 6: The 2001–2002 Operational Feasibility Report of 

the American Community Survey," May 2004, p. 5. 

8 Data users and stakeholders demanded data similar in 

statistical reliability to the long-form census data that the ACS 

sought to replace. It was not enough for the survey to deliver new 

data on the nation as a whole every year, it had to deliver data for 

characteristics of subpopulations even in small areas. For certain 

small population groups, data users had deemed information critical 

to the operation of Congressionally mandated programs, including 

the percentage of children in poverty in neighborhoods and the 

location of concentrations of senior citizens with disabilities. As 

mentioned in earlier chapters of this history, statisticians projected 

that the 3 million households sample size would increase standard 

errors by about 25 percent over the decennial long form for 

estimates of characteristics of populations shared by 10 percent of 

the population of an average sized census tract.

9 Deborah H. Griffin and Preston Jay Waite, “American 

Community Survey Overview and the Role of External Evaluations,” 

Population Research and Policy Review, vol. 25, 2006, p. 212. 

To assess costs and sample size, the initial prototype for what 

became the ACS predicted that the ACS would have a 50 percent 

mail response rate and an overall survey response rate of 93.4 

percent. Charles H. Alexander, “A Prototype Design for Continuous 

Measurement,” Internal Census Bureau Reports CM-7, 1993, pp. 4–5.
U.S. Census Bureau 135

a high mail response rate became all the more 

important.10

• CATI response rates. The C2SS test demonstrated that the Census Bureau could successfully 

conduct telephone and in-person interviews for 

a nationwide ACS. The Census Bureau was able 

to complete CATI on schedule, which reduced 

the workload for personal visit follow-ups by 57.3 

percent.11

• CAPI response rates. The Census Bureau followed up with CAPI of a subsample of households to which the Census Bureau could not mail 

its questionnaires and from households that had 

not responded to the mail survey or follow-up 

telephone calls. The Census Bureau also completed the CAPI operation on schedule and with 

a 91.9 percent response rate. Only 3.8 percent of 

respondents refused to participate.12

The C2SS also provided insight into operational 

aspects needing improvement. Overall, while workload projections were accurate and increased staffing and workloads were manageable, the Census 

Bureau identified some staffing deficiencies and 

higher-than-anticipated workloads, specifically during 

the timeframe when data processing overlapped 

with 2000 Census operations.13 For example, the 

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) workload 

was higher than expected for the first 4 months of 

2000 due to an increased number of calls related 

to the census. The staffing shortfall for TQA in turn 

10 For example, a lower than expected number of mail 

respondents would mean that either: (1) the Census Bureau would 

have to shift its resources in order to interview more households 

by phone or in person, thus increasing cost; or (2) it would have to 

publish estimates derived from a smaller-than-planned number of 

respondents, resulting in lower reliability than projected. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, p. 17. 11 The Census Bureau accomplished that despite the increased 

workload that resulted from the much larger sample size. As the 

sample expanded from 26 to 1,239 counties, the CATI operation grew 

from follow-up of about 3,500 cases per month to 19,000 case per 

month in 2000. To accommodate the increased workload, the Census 

Bureau increased the number of call centers from one to three and 

the number of interviewers from 39 to 181. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Report 1, pp. 20–22. In comparison to 2000, the CATI response rate 

was higher in 2001 (65 percent) and 2002 (63.5 percent). U.S. Census 

Bureau, Report 6, p. 12. 12 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, p. 16. The remaining 4.3 percent 

did not respond for reasons such as: no one at home, respondent 

temporarily absent, and language barriers. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, pp. 15–16. 

affected the Edit Follow-up Operation.14 The Census 

Bureau addressed such issues as it continued to test 

the operational feasibility of the ACS in 2001 and 

2002.15

Survey Quality

In addition to the success of each mode of data 

collection, the C2SS test showed that the Census 

Bureau had nonresponse errors under control. 

Nonresponse error is a major source of nonsampling 

error and affects how well estimates from a survey 

capture characteristics of the total population. One of 

the main types of nonresponse is unit nonresponse, 

where a survey fails to obtain data from a unit in 

the survey (such as a person or household) because 

interviewers failed to contact residents, members of 

the household refused to participate, or some other 

factor. The C2SS response rates served as a good 

proxy measure for nonresponse error and revealed 

that the Census Bureau had maintained the earlier 

high levels of total survey response for the 1995–1999 

tests as operations moved nationwide.16

In terms of nonresponse error across racial and ethnic 

groups, the C2SS test performed well, but found 

that nonresponse rates were not distributed evenly 

among the various groups. Census Bureau researchers compared C2SS response rates in census tracts 

where 75 percent of more of the population reported 

one ethnic or racial category. Survey response rates 

were significantly lower in tracts where the Black 

population predominated and in tracts where a large 

proportion of the American Indian and Alaska Native 

population resided than in tracts with a high concentration of the White population (Table 1).17 While 

the total survey response rates were high across all 

14 TQA provides information and assistance to individuals who 

call a toll-free number provided on Census Bureau questionnaires. 

In 2000, TQA staff provided information on both the C2SS and the 

2000 Census. In addition, TQA staff also were responsible for the 

edit follow-up operation. Edit follow-up is an automated coverage 

and content edit designed to identify missing or inconsistent 

responses. Records that fail the edit follow-up operation (in other 

words, records that have missing or inconsistent responses) require 

telephone follow-up. The increased workload for the C2SS caused 

backlogs in data entry early in 2000, which was resolved later in the 

year after decennial operations ended. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 

1, pp. 18–19. 15 Refer to the section of this report titled, “Continued 

Operational Quality and Improvements in the ACS: 2001–2002.” 16 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, p. 15, and U.S. Census Bureau, 

Report 1, p. 23. 17 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 15 and 17.
136 U.S. Census Bureau

groups, the Census Bureau concluded that it needed 

to make improvements and continue monitoring 

response rates of racial and ethnic groups.18

DATA QUALITY AND COMPARABILITY AMONG 

C2SS, ACS MULTIYEAR AVERAGES: 1999–2001, 

2000 CENSUS LONG-FORM DATA

In addition to evaluating the operational feasibility of 

ACS data collection methods and measures of survey 

quality, the Census Bureau evaluated the quality of 

the data produced from the ACS and the C2SS. The 

Census Bureau also knew that stakeholders would 

gain further confidence in the new survey if outside researchers reviewed its data and methods for 

strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement. 

Thus, in spring 2003 the Census Bureau contracted 

with four researchers to compare ACS 3-year average 

data (for 1999–2001) to the 2000 Census long form 

across a spectrum of social and demographic characteristics for the total population, subpopulations, 

18 For example, in 2002 it began studying the possibility 

of oversampling (increasing the sample size) in areas with low 

response rates. It also mailed reminder cards and replacement 

questionnaires in those tracts and made telephone assistance 

available in English and in Spanish. The Census Bureau also initiated 

studies of refusals, noncontacts, and other noninterviews. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, p. 18.

and small areas.19 Specifically, researchers looked at 

both data quality (as measured by nonsampling and 

sampling errors), as well as data comparability.20 The 

analyses by the Census Bureau and outside researchers generally confirmed that the ACS could produce 

more timely estimates of comparable or better data 

quality than those produced by the decennial long 

form. 

Nonsampling Errors

Self-Response Rates

Survey responses generally are more complete 

and, thus, of higher quality when mailed in by the 

respondent than when survey interviewers personally 

interview the respondents and record their answers.21

However, the various reviews of ACS data noted that 

the level of self-response (response through the mail) 

was higher for the 2000 Census long form than for 

the ACS. The Census Bureau noted that this was likely 

due to the high visibility and extensive advertising 

19 Griffin and Waite, “American Community Survey Overview 

and the Role of External Evaluations,” 2006, p. 210, and Robert 

Scardamalia, “The American Community Survey: General 

Commentary on the Findings From External Evaluations,” Population 

Research & Policy Review, 2006, vol. 25, p. 294. Refer to Linda 

Gage, California Department of Finance, “Comparison of Census 

2000 and American Community Survey 1999–2001 Estimates: 

San Francisco and Tulare Counties, California,” 2004, accessed 

on January 29, 2013, at <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/

library/2004/2004_Gage_01.pdf>; George C. Hough, Jr., and 

David A. Swanson, “The 1999–2001 American Community Survey and 

the 2000 Census Data Quality and Data Comparisons: Multnomah 

County, Oregon,” March 9, 2004, accessed on January 30, 2013, 

at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/workingpapers/2004/acs/2004_Salvo_01.pdf>; Joseph Salvo, Peter Lobo, 

and Timothy Calabrese, New York City Department of City Planning, 

“Small Area Data Quality: A Comparison of Estimates, 2000 Census 

and the 1999–2001 ACS Bronx, New York Test Site,” March 5, 2004, 

accessed on January 29, 2013, at <www.census.gov/content/dam/

Census/library/working-papers/2004/acs/2004_VanAuken_01.

pdf>; and Paul M. Van Auken, Roger B. Hammer, Paul R. Voss,

and Daniel L. Veroff, University of Wisconsin-Madison, “American 

Community Survey and Census Comparison Final Analytic Report: 

Vilas and Oneida Counties, Wisconsin, Flathead and Lake Counties, 

Montana,” March 5, 2004, accessed on January 29, 2013, at <www.

census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2004/

acs/2004_VanAuken_01.pdf>. 20 Sampling error refers to the variability that occurs by change 

because a sample was surveyed rather than the entire population. 

Nonsampling error includes all other errors that occur in surveys, 

including nonresponse (missing or incomplete information), 

coverage (missing or duplicate responses from individuals), 

measurement (data collection), and processing errors. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Report 2, pp. 6–7. 21 Gage, “Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community 

Survey 1999–2001 Estimates,” p. 7.

Table 1.

Survey Response Rates by Racial and Ethnic 

Groups

Group1

Total weighted 

survey response 

rate

White. . .

Black. . . 

American Indian and Alaska Native. . . 

Asian. . .

Hispanic. . .

* Significantly different from White at the 90 percent confidence 

level. 1 Racial/ethnic group comprises at least 75 percent of the 

population.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Meeting 21st Century Demographic 

Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey,” Report 

2: Demonstrating Survey Quality, May 2002, p. 17.
U.S. Census Bureau 137

campaign of the decennial census.22 The combined 

self-response rate for the 35 counties included in the 

2000 ACS test was 55.3 percent, compared to the 

2000 Census long-form self-response rate of 68.1 

percent.23 As discussed below, both Census Bureau 

researchers and external evaluators said that other 

indicators of data quality offset the ACS’ lower 

self-response rates. 

Nonresponse Rates

Overall, the ACS had lower housing unit and occupied housing unit nonresponse rates than the census 

long form, which indicates a higher response rate 

during nonresponse follow-up operations for the ACS 

compared to the 2000 Census.24 This is due to the 

fact that the ACS, with a significantly smaller sample 

than a complete count, necessarily had a more rigorous follow-up operation than the decennial census. 

Further, the ACS employs a staff of permanent professional interviewers while the census uses temporary census takers. The difference in nonresponse 

rates may result in larger nonresponse errors in the 

census long form data than in the ACS.25

On average across the ACS test site counties, the 

occupied housing unit nonresponse rate for the 2000 

Census sample was 3.5 percentage points larger than 

22 U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic 

Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, 

Report 7: Comparing Quality Measures: The American Community 

Survey’s Three-Year Averages and Census 2000’s Long Form 

Sample Estimates," June 2004, p. vi. In addition, the 2000 Census 

included questionnaires in languages other than English, designed 

to increase self-response rates in areas with high concentrations of 

households with limited English proficiency. In contrast, the ACS 

used only English questionnaires in 2000, although it later added 

questionnaires in other languages. Ibid., p. 44. 23 The average difference between the two rates (12.8 

percentage points) is statistically significant. The margin of error 

for the self-response rates was 3.6 percent at the 90 percent 

confidence interval. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, pp. 7, 14. 24 Unit nonresponse is the failure to obtain the minimum required 

information from an eligible person in the sample (in a housing 

unit or group quarters), for reasons such as respondent unable or 

unwilling to participate, interviewer unable to locate address or 

respondent, etc. The occupied unit nonresponse rate is a measure 

of the percentage of occupied housing units for which there was 

not enough information obtained for an interview. For the ACS, 

researchers subtract response rates from 100 percent to measure 

unit nonresponse. The Census Bureau calculated these two rates for 

the following reasons: (1) to measure how successful the ACS and 

the 2000 Census were in obtaining interviews and enumerations, 

and (2) to get an indication of the levels of potential nonresponse 

error in the estimates from the two surveys. Ibid., pp. 17, 21. 25 Ibid., p. vi, and U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community 

Survey: Response Rates – Definitions,” accessed on January 30, 

2013, at <www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/

sample-size-and-data-quality/response-rates-definitions.html>.

the ACS 3-year average rate (8.7 percent and 5.2 

percent, respectively).26 In some of the areas examined by outside researchers, the differences were 

even larger. For instance, in Tulare County, California, 

the census occupied housing unit nonresponse rate 

was 10.1 percent compared to the ACS rate of 3.9 

percent.27 In addition, evidence suggested that the 

ACS outperformed the census long form across small 

areas. The ACS occupied housing unit nonresponse 

rate for Bronx, New York, was 11 percent, compared 

to 21 percent for the 2000 Census long form. Overall, 

the 2000 Census had higher unit nonresponse rates 

than did the ACS in 77 of the 88 neighborhoods in 

the Bronx.28

Sample Completeness

Sample completeness is a measure of how well a 

sample represents the total population. When the 

ratio of people with certain characteristics in the 

survey are different from those in the census count, 

estimates of characteristics can be affected. For the 

studies discussed in this section, the sample completeness ratio was calculated by dividing the ACS 

weighted population estimates (or the 2000 Census 

long-form sample estimates) by the 2000 Census 

population count, and multiplying by 100. The closer 

the ratio is to 100, the closer the survey sample represents the total population.29

26 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, pp. 20–21. The Census Bureau 

collected ACS 3-year average estimates between 1999 and 2001 in 

36 counties across the United States. The Census Bureau selected 

these counties to represent different types of geographic areas, 

including large cities and medium and rural counties. To simulate the 

sampling error for the planned 5-year data, a greater percentage of 

the individuals living in these counties were included in each year’s 

sample than was planned for when the fully-implemented ACS. Ibid., 

p. v.27 Gage, “Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community 

Survey 1999–2001 Estimates,” p. 9. 28 Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” pp. 7–8.

29 Ibid., p. 6. Starsinic and Albright developed the sample 

completeness ratio to capture error due to both coverage and 

nonresponse. They compared the 2000 C2SS and 1990 Census 

long-form sample completeness ratios and found the C2SS ratio 

of 90.2 to be significantly different (at the 90 percent confident 

level) from the 1990 Census long-form sample completeness ratio of 

89.7. Differences between the survey estimates and the population 

count can be due to unit nonresponse, survey undercoverage (the 

extent to which the sampling frame contains fewer people than the 

sampled population), and differences in the frame used for sample 

selection. Michael Starsinic and Keith Albright, U.S. Census Bureau, 

“Coverage and Completeness in the Census 2000 Supplementary 

Survey,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, 

American Statistical Association, 2002, pp. 3346–3347, accessed on 

January 29, 2013, at <www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2002f.html>, 

and U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 22–23. 
138 U.S. Census Bureau

The Census Bureau’s comparisons of sample completeness rates between the ACS 3-year averages and 

the 2000 Census sample estimates found that the 

ACS represented housing units better than the census long-form sample. The ACS housing unit sample 

completeness ratio of 92.9 was 2.6 points higher than 

the census long-form ratio of 90.3. The surveys represented the population equally as well; the household 

population sample completeness rates of 90.4 for the 

ACS and 91.1 for the census long form were not statistically different.30

Outside research also demonstrated that the ACS 

3-year data matched or exceeded the ability of 

census long form to represent the true population. 

For instance, in the Bronx, New York, the ACS had 

a population sample completeness ratio of 83.0 

whereas the 2000 Census long form had a ratio of 

80.0. In both Multnomah County, Oregon, and San 

Francisco County, California, there was no significant 

difference between the ACS ratio and the long-form 

30 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, p. 39.

ratio (88.0).31 In Multnomah County, the ACS ratio 

was 93.9, compared to the long-form ratio of 94.4. 

However, one study noted that completeness ratios 

for the individual years of ACS test site surveys were 

inconsistent, first rising and then falling (78.0, 88.0, 

and 85.0, respectively for 1999 through 2001). That 

study concluded that the Census Bureau needed to 

evaluate whether this effect was the result of the 

implementation of new controls for population estimates or changes in how they created the estimates 

from year to year.32

Although the 2004 studies did not address sample 

completeness by subgroups of the population, an 

earlier study by the Census Bureau found that the 

C2SS sample completeness ratios for most racial 

groups compared favorably to those from the 1990 

Census long-form ratios (Table 2).33 These findings 

had important implications for the survey’s ability 

produce accurate estimates on characteristics for 

racial and ethnic groups. These sample completeness 

ratios close to 100.0 gave the best assurance that the 

sample was representative of the groups.34

31 Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” p. 25; 

Hough and Swanson, “The 1999-2001 American Community Survey 

and the 2000 Census Data Quality and Data Comparisons,” p. 3; 

and Gage, “Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community 

Survey 1999-2001 Estimates,” p. 9. In general, these studies 

indicated that the ACS housing unit sample completeness ratios 

for various areas were consistent with those of the 2000 Census 

long-form survey. These findings agree with earlier comparisons 

of the C2SS and the 1990 long-form estimates that demonstrated 

that the C2SS had sample completeness ratios across geographic 

areas as good as those for the long-form survey it sought to replace. 

For 15 states, there was no statistical difference in this measure 

for the C2SS and the long form. For small states, the 1990 long 

form had better sample completeness ratios. For states with large 

populations, the C2SS outperformed the 1990 Census long-form 

survey. Starsinic and Albright, “Coverage and Completeness in the 

Census 2000 Supplementary Survey,” p. 5. 32 Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” p. 25.

33 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 22–25; Starsinic and 

Albright, “Coverage and Completeness in the Census 2000 

Supplementary Survey,” p. 3347. 34 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, p. 22. For example, if a 

disproportionate share of Asian American women with less than a 

high school education were left out of the sample, either by missing 

addresses or failing to respond, the C2SS could report incorrectly 

on the educational attainment of Asian American women. That 

is, it would overestimate the educational attainment of the Asian 

American population, as well as for the total population. The 

Census Bureau’s analysis of the C2SS results in terms of sample 

completeness concluded that it was hard to measure whether 

people in the C2SS’s sample differed in characteristics from those 

not sampled since survey data for these people are, by definition, 

not available. 

Table 2.

Comparison of Sample Completeness Ratios: 

C2SS and 1990 Census Long Form

Group C2SS

1990 long 

form

  Total population. . . . . .

White. . . . . .

Black. . . . . .

American Indian and Alaska Native. .  88.1 

Asian. . . . . 

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander. . . . . 

Hispanic (any race). . . . . .

* Sample completeness ratios of the two samples are statistically 

significant at the 90 percent confidence level.

Source: Michael Starsinic and Keith Albright, U.S. Census Bureau, 

“Coverage and Completeness in the Census 2000 Supplementary 

Survey,” Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, 

American Statistical Association, 2002, p. 3347, accessed on January 29, 

2013, at <www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2002/acs/2002_

Starsinic_01.html>.
U.S. Census Bureau 139

Item Nonresponse 

In addition to having sample completeness ratios 

that met or exceeded expectations, the ACS test 

surveys compared favorably to, and, in many ways, 

performed better than the 2000 Census in terms of 

item nonresponse. Item nonresponse occurs when 

a respondent fails to provide complete and usable 

information for all required items, such as when a 

person accidentally overlooks a question, refuses to 

answer it, or provides an invalid answer. High item 

nonresponse can adversely impact the final estimates 

of a survey. One way of minimizing the impact of item 

nonresponse error is through imputation. Thus, the 

Census Bureau uses imputation rates as a measure of 

item nonresponse.35

Census Bureau studies in 2001 and 2002 showed 

that at the national level, the C2SS had significantly 

lower data allocation rates than the 2000 Census 

long form for most items, including gender, age, race, 

and Hispanic origin.36 Subsequent studies of the ACS 

3-year average data also showed that the ACS had 

lower item allocation rates than the census long form. 

For example, for person-level (as opposed to household-level) questions, the ACS 3-year average data 

had an item allocation rate of 6.5 percent, compared 

to 11.2 percent for the 2000 Census long form.37 In 

addition, in a study of data for the Bronx, New York, 

35 Imputation is the process used to resolve the problems of 

missing, invalid, or inconsistent responses identified during editing; 

Census Bureau employees change responses or missing values 

on the person’s record to ensure a plausible, internally consistent 

record. Imputation is done through allocation (using answers 

from other people in the household or people believed to have 

similar characteristics) or assignment (using information from the 

household to assign a value for a missing item such as using first 

name to determine a person’s sex). The imputation rate is the ratio 

of the number of eligible people that had a value imputed for an 

item to the number of people eligible to have responded to that 

item. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 19–20, 42–43. 36 For example, the Census Bureau imputed the race of 3.9 

percent of the eligible population from the 2000 Census but only 

had to impute the race of 2.4 percent of the people in the C2SS. 

Imputation rates for gender were 1.0 percent for the 2000 Census 

and 0.5 percent for the C2SS. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, p. 20. 

In 2002, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the 

Census Bureau’s early reports on data allocation rates and relayed 

the findings to Congress. GAO noted that because of the sample 

size, the accuracy of the ACS would be less than that of the census 

long form, however, nonresponse errors were somewhat smaller for 

the ACS. GAO, "The American Community Survey: Accuracy and 

Timeliness Issues," GAO-02-956R, Sept. 30, 2002, pp. 3, 9, and 10. 37 The Census Bureau then averaged item allocation rates across 

the 36 counties included in the ACS 3-year averages. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Report 7, pp. 28–30. 

the difference between the 3-year averages and the 

long-form data were striking. For questions such as 

weeks worked last year, industry, occupation, and 

employment status, allocation rates were at least 10 

percentage points higher in the 2000 Census than in 

the ACS.38

The lower item allocation for the ACS indicated that 

its estimates were less prone to nonresponse errors 

than estimates from the census long form.39 Several 

factors affected this, such as the use of a permanent, 

professional interviewing staff and computer-assisted 

interviewing instruments.40 Further, the ongoing 

nature of the ACS appeared to contribute to its lower 

nonresponse rates, although the Census Bureau concluded that it needed further research to explore this 

finding.41

Sampling Errors 

Because the Census Bureau expected the ACS to 

produce statistically reliable estimates for small 

population groups and small areas, a key indicator 

of the suitability of the ACS as a replacement for the 

census long form was the sampling error of its small 

area estimates. A sampling error is the variability that 

occurs when asking a portion, rather than the entire 

population. Generally, the larger the sample, the 

smaller the sampling error. The Census Bureau calculated that the sampling error of the ACS would be 

one-third higher than that of the long form because 

of its smaller sample size and use of subsampling for 

personal interviews of nonrespondents (rather than 

personally interviewing all nonrespondents as did the 

census).42

38 Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” p. 7. 39 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, p. vi. 40 In comparison, nonresponse follow-up interviewers for the 

2000 Census were relatively inexperienced temporary workers. In 

fact, in 2000, pressure to complete the count ended up depriving 

the 2000 Census long form of resources to conduct follow-up with 

households that failed to answer certain questions. Further, the 

workforce of predominantly temporary census takers did not like to 

ask the income question and several other “difficult” questions. 

U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, p. 31; U.S. Census Bureau, Report 1, 

p. 10; and Paula Schneider, interview with author, October 27, 2011. 41 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, p. 41.

42 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 27–29, and Michael Starsinic, 

U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey: Improving 

Reliability for Small Area Estimates,” Proceedings of the Survey 

Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association, 2005, 

pp. 3592, 3594, accessed on January 29, 2013, at <www.asasrms.

org/Proceedings/y2005/files/JSM2005-000427.pdf>.
140 U.S. Census Bureau

Overall, the Census Bureau met the target levels 

of sampling error for single-year ACS estimates. 

However, differences in mail response indicated that 

sampling error was higher for some groups than for 

others.43 In response, the Census Bureau created 

plans to boost subsampling in areas where mail 

response rates were low. It also explored measures 

to make it easier for households with limited English 

proficiency to respond to the survey.44 However, 

when outside researchers analyzed the ACS 3-year 

average data, they found the tract-level sampling 

errors to be higher than expected. For example, a 

study of four counties (two in Montana and two in 

Wisconsin) found sampling errors for census tractlevel estimates in three of the counties were much 

higher than the Census Bureau had predicted. 

Although county-level sampling errors were roughly 

33 percent higher than those for the 2000 Census 

long form, as expected, many tract-level sampling 

errors were 50 to 150 percent higher. The Census 

Bureau’s further investigation found that, unlike the 

2000 Census that increased sampling rates based on 

occupancy to yield more useful data, the ACS failed 

to oversample minor civil divisions in Wisconsin. This 

oversampling in the census resulted in a smaller than 

normal sampling error. The Census Bureau determined that correcting for the absence of oversampling might diminish the differences between the 

long from and the ACS in this area, and the changes 

were made in 2002 and 2005 that made both sets of 

data more comparable.45

Data Comparability

In addition to comparing measures of data quality 

between the ACS and the census long form, researchers compared the statistics produced by the two surveys to determine if they were comparable. In 2002, 

GAO identified key survey items where the difference 

43 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 27–28. The C2SS did 

not provide sufficient information to serve as a test of a fully 

implemented ACS on this facet of data quality. Its sample size was 

a fraction of what the ACS would have on full implementation. In 

addition, the C2SS did not sample all counties, so it did not produce 

state estimates. Therefore, the Census Bureau did not evaluate 

results as if they were a measure of what the ACS would produce 

eventually. Ibid., p. 27. 44 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 2, pp. 28–29, and Charles H. 

Alexander (ed. by Alfredo Navarro), “The Quality of Estimates From 

the American Community Survey for Small Population Groups,” 

Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, American 

Statistical Association, 2003, p. 366, accessed on January 29, 2013, 

at <www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2003/Files/JSM2003-000180.

pdf>.

45 Van Auken, et al., “American Community Survey and Census 

Comparison Final Analytic Report,” pp. 40–48, and Starsinic, 

“American Community Survey: Improving Reliability for Small Area 

Estimates,” 2005, pp. 3595–3596.

between the national-level estimates from the 2000 

Census and the C2SS were greater than 10 percent, 

such as housing units lacking complete plumbing and 

self-employed workers. GAO also found several statelevel estimates that differed by more than 10 percent 

between the two surveys, such as workers commuting by public transportation, households with income 

of $200,000 or more, and measures of the number 

of individuals and children living in poverty.46 The 

Census Bureau pointed out that GAO evaluated estimates from only 1 year and that 5-year ACS estimates 

would be more accurate than decennial long-form 

estimates because they would more closely reflect 

an area’s current conditions than decennial census 

estimates.47

Subsequent studies provided more evidence of the 

accuracy and quality of ACS estimates. The Census 

Bureau found poverty measures in the 2000 Census 

and the C2SS to be relatively consistent, at 12.4 

percent and 12.2 percent, respectively. The Current 

Population Survey (CPS) measure of poverty was 

comparable at 11.9 percent. Because the Census 

Bureau conducts the CPS specifically to provide official government estimates of employment, unemployment, and poverty, statisticians consider this survey 

as the benchmark against which to compare other 

estimates, so the similar results point to the accuracy 

of the ACS data.48

Researchers at the New York City Department of City 

Planning determined that the differences between 

estimates for the Bronx were not large enough to 

affect the planning of public programs. They compared 235 data topics from the ACS 3-year estimates 

and the 2000 Census long form for the Bronx’s 88 

neighborhoods and found 190 statistically similar 

data topics in the surveys. One exception was the 

number of persons with disabilities in several neighborhoods, which could have implications on public 

transportation planning, however Census Bureau 

researchers attributed this outlier to increased explanations from more rigorous follow-up operations of 

46 GAO noted that the differences did not appear to have been 

caused by the C2SS’ exclusion of people living in group quarters or 

by seasonal fluctuations in the population and incomes. GAO, "The 

American Community Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues," p. 11. 

GAO acknowledged that complete information was not available to 

fully evaluate data quality and also noted that more information was 

needed to meet federal agencies’ needs regarding the use of ACS 

data. Ibid., pp. 9–15. 47 Ibid., p. 31. 

48 Paula Schneider, U.S. Census Bureau, “Content and Data 

Quality in Census 2000,” Census 2000 Testing, Experimentation, 

and Evaluation Program, Topic Report Series, No. 12, TR-12, March 

2004, p. 21.
U.S. Census Bureau 141

the ACS.49 Furthermore, for some data items with 

statistically significant differences between the ACS 

and the 2000 Census, the ACS estimate was closer 

to the value indicated by administrative records. 

For example, ACS estimates on fuel used for home 

heating were much closer than the census estimates 

to comparable estimates from local utilities and 

New York City’s Housing and Vacancy Survey. The 

ACS data on the number of employed persons was 

also more consistent with state data and data from 

the Bureau of Economic Analysis than were census 

counts. Overall, these researchers concluded that the 

ACS was an acceptable substitute for the census long 

form from a content standpoint.50 

The study of ACS results for Tulare County, California, 

mirrored the findings from the Bronx. Overall, 80 

percent of the data topics examined were statistically 

comparable between the ACS 3-year averages and 

the 2000 Census. Where there were differences, the 

researcher noted that the ACS data was still “useful 

and usable” and that the ACS might have captured 

other phenomena.51 For example, lower median 

income values reported in the ACS, as compared to 

the long form, may have reflected the timing of the 

data collection. The ACS collected data throughout 

the year while the census long form used April 1 as its 

reference date. In Tulare County, California, the long 

form reported a median income of $33,983, compared to the ACS estimate of $31,467. According to 

the author, the difference was “theoretically consistent” with an annual income figure that would include 

seasonal workers who have lower earnings.52

Estimates for 63 percent of the 364 variables tested 

for Multnomah County, Oregon, were not statistically different between the ACS 3-year data and the 

2000 Census long-form data. Several variables with 

statistically significant differences reflected trends 

in the local area that the 2000 Census long form 

missed. For example, the higher levels of educational 

attainment reported by the ACS were consistent 

with migration patterns into Portland and Multnomah 

County. The authors suggested that other differences 

49 The authors determined an item was similar across the two 

surveys if differences between their estimates were statistically 

significant different in less than one-fifth of the Bronx’s 88 

neighborhoods. Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data 

Quality,” pp. 9, 21–22. 50 According to the authors, the 2000 Census recorded that 

employment had declined by 3 percent from 1990 to 2000, even 

though New York City was booming economically. Salvo, Lobo, and 

Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” pp. 20–22. 51 Gage, “Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community 

Survey 1999-2001 Estimates,” p. 4. 52 Ibid., pp. 4, 6.

in the estimates from the two surveys might be the 

result of differences in the wording and placement of 

questions on the two survey forms.53

The Census Bureau’s comparison of estimates from 

ACS 3-year data and the 2000 Census found that 

at the county level, most of the estimates were not 

significantly different. Some small (less than 1 percentage point) county-level differences reflected 

the larger sample sizes in the largest counties. Other 

small but statistically significant differences were in 

the age, relationship, and household income variables. Other county-level differences were due to 

differences in questionnaire wording or survey operations between the two surveys (including editing procedures, weighting, and the use of computer-assisted 

interviewing for ACS nonresponse follow-up), such as 

with the race, disability, and school enrollment questions. Finally, the Census Bureau noted that some 

differences were difficult to detect at the tract-level 

because of the small sample sizes and larger variances. The researchers suggested that national-level 

comparisons between ACS and 2000 Census estimates might verify whether these differences exist 

at the national level or whether some of these differences are particular to the counties chosen for the 

study.54

In 2004, the Census Bureau released four reports 

comparing estimates from the C2SS to the 2000 

Census for demographic, economic, social, and housing characteristics.55 The Census Bureau undertook 

these comparisons for two reasons: (1) to demonstrate that the ACS was a sound replacement for the 

long form with respect to quality, and (2) to determine how ACS data may differ from decennial census 

data. Thus, when Census Bureau researchers found 

53 Hough and Swanson, “The 1999-2001 American Community 

Survey and the 200 Census Data Quality and Data Comparisons,” 

pp. 24, 31. 54 U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 

8: Comparison of the American Community Survey Three-Year 

Averages and the Census Sample for a Sample of Counties and 

Tracts," June 2004, pp. xvii–xviii, 60. 55 U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 

4: Comparing General Demographic and Housing Characteristics 

With Census 2000," May 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st 

Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American 

Community Survey, Report 5: Comparing Economic Characteristics 

With Census 2000," May 2004; U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st 

Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American 

Community Survey, Report 9: Comparing Social Characteristics 

With Census 2000," June 2004; and U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 

21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the 

American Community Survey, Report 10: Comparing Selected 

Physical and Financial Characteristics of Housing With the Census 

2000," July 2004. 
142 U.S. Census Bureau

significant differences, they explored the reasons, 

sought supporting evidence to determine if the ACS 

estimate was sound, and suggested improvements 

when necessary. These reports also served as a starting point for understanding the differences between 

the two surveys to help data users make the transition from the decennial census long-form estimates 

to the ACS.56

For example, differences in the race estimates 

between the 2000 Census and the C2SS were 

statistically significant. A larger proportion of people reported White as their race and fewer people 

reported “Some Other Race” in the C2SS than in 

the 2000 Census (Table 3). There were only minor 

differences in wording and formatting between the 

two surveys. However, one reason for the difference 

in estimates may be in how interviewers deal with 

responses to the race question during nonresponse 

follow-up. Previous Census Bureau research had 

shown that the biggest differences in reporting of 

race occur in data collected by interviewers. Further, 

a more detailed comparison of C2SS and 2000 

Census responses revealed that the 2000 Census 

had a higher proportion of the Hispanic population 

reporting Some Other Race when an interviewer 

collected their data. A separate study found that 

C2SS interviewers who did not also work on the 

2000 Census were more likely to prompt for another 

answer if a Hispanic respondent provided “Hispanic” 

as a response to the race question. Thus, the Census 

Bureau concluded that differences in interviewing 

techniques likely led to the higher proportion of 

56 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 4, pp. 1–2.

“White” responses and a lower proportion of “Some 

Other Race” responses in the C2SS.57

Conclusion: ACS Would Be a Reasonable 

Replacement of the Long Form

The overall conclusion of these and other studies was 

that the Census Bureau should move forward with its 

plans to replace the decennial census long-form sample with the ACS in 2010. The Census Bureau argued 

that the quality measures and timeliness of the ACS 

data compared to the long form suggested that the 

ACS was superior to the traditional method of conducting the census with a long-form sample.58 When 

implemented fully, the ACS would improve overall 

survey quality compared with census long-form sample. Although the Census Bureau expected increases 

in sampling error (due to the smaller sample size), it 

believed that the ACS would improve the timeliness 

of the data and reduce nonsampling error.59 The 

Census Bureau noted:

“The basic premise of the ACS rolling sample is that 

this relatively moderate increase in the sampling error 

for one part of a decade is a reasonable tradeoff 

so as to profit from the ability to update the 5-year 

average every year and thereby gain a picture of the 

direction of change and relative differences among 

groups and areas. If the size and characteristics of 

the population change, such as from 400 to 480, 

the 5-year average gives a more accurate picture of 

current conditions than the out-of-date long-form 

statistics . . . The updated ACS estimates would give a 

more accurate reflection of current conditions.”60

57 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 4, pp. 32–39. Also refer to 

Theresa Leslie, David Raglin, and Laurie Schwede, U.S. Census 

Bureau, “Understanding the Effects of Interview Behavior on 

the Collection of Race Data,” 2002, accessed February 6, 2013, 

at <www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/library/2002/ 

2002_Leslie_01.pdf>; Claudette E. Bennett and Deborah H. 

Griffin, U.S. Census Bureau, “Race and Hispanic Origin Data: A 

Comparison of Results From Census 2000 Supplementary Survey 

and Census 2000,” 2002, accessed February 6, 2013, at <www.

census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2002/

acs/2002_Bennett_01.pdf>, and Laurie Schwede, Therese F. 

Leslie, and Deborah H. Griffin, U.S. Census Bureau, “Interviewers’ 

Reported Behaviors in Collecting Race and Hispanic Origin Data,” 

2002, accessed February 6, 2013, at <www.census.gov/acs/www/

Downloads/library/2002/2002_Schwede_01.pdf>. 58 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 7, p. 41, and U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey Operations Plan, Release 1, March 

2003, p. 48. 59 Griffin and Waite, “American Community Survey Overview and 

the Role of External Evaluations,” p. 209. 60 Alexander, “The Quality of Estimates from the American 

Community Survey for Small Population Groups,” p. 365.

Table 3.

Comparison of C2SS and 2000 Census Race 

Question

(In percent)

Race alone or in combination C2SS

2000 

Census

Difference

White. . . . . . . .

Black or African American. . . . . . . . 

American Indian and Alaska Native. .  1.7 1.5 

Asian. . . . . . .

Native Hawaiian and Other 

Pacific Islander. . . . . . .

Some Other Race. . . . . . . 

* Difference is statistically significant.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic 

Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 

4: Comparing General Demographic and Housing Characteristics with 

Census 2000," May 2004, pp. 1–2.
U.S. Census Bureau 143

The outside researchers with whom the Census 

Bureau contracted to compare the 2000 Census 

and ACS 3-year estimates generally agreed with the 

findings of the agency. One study concluded, “The 

ACS promises to hold great potential for data users. 

Rather than waiting for 10 years for refreshed data 

from each decennial census, local data can be made 

available each year.”61 Another noted, “The ACS 

clearly has the potential to not only be an adequate 

replacement of the long form, but in fact, to be an 

improvement.”62 However, the researchers also identified issues of concern and made recommendations 

for further research. These included:

Self-response rates. The lower mail response rates 

of the ACS in comparison to the 2000 Census long 

form was a cause for concern. Strong nonresponse 

follow-up operations are more expensive and may not 

be as accurate as self-response. Further, if mail return 

rates did not improve, some areas could have insufficient data to generate reliable estimates at the tract 

level.63

Sample size. Given the relatively smaller sample 

size of the ACS, any reduction in sample size would 

pose a severe threat to the quality of the survey’s 

estimates.64

Need for training. Given data users’ heavy use of 

and dependence on the decennial long form data, it 

was crucial that the Census Bureau work closely with 

data users to determine appropriate uses of the data 

and provide training on how to properly interpret the 

data. In addition, data users needed training on how 

to use multiyear averaged data and data for small 

jurisdictions.65

Finally, researchers emphasized the importance 

of adequate funding, noting that continuous and 

61 Hough and Swanson, “The 1999-2001 American Community 

Survey and the 2000 Census Data Quality Comparisons,” p. 31. 62 Van Auken et al., “American Community Survey and Census 

Comparison Final Analytical Report,” p. 63. 63 Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” p. 22, 

and Van Auken, et al., “American Community Survey and Census 

Comparison Final Analytical Report,” p. 63. 64 Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” p. 22.

65 Scardamalia, “The American Community Survey: General 

Commentary on the Findings From External Evaluations,” p. 301; 

Salvo, Lobo, and Calabrese, “Small Area Data Quality,” p. 22; Gage, 

“Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community Survey 

1999-2001 Estimates,” p. 16; and Hough and Swanson, “The 1999-

2001 American Community Survey and the 2000 Census Data 

Quality Comparisons,” p. 32.

sufficient funding was crucial to the success of the 

ACS.66 As one researcher noted, “Continuous measurement assumes continuous funding . . . Sufficient 

funding for implementing the 2010 ACS plan must 

be ensured for a longer time horizon than the annual 

federal budget process now allocates . . . Only with 

this guaranteed financial support can the ACS plan 

provide results that are more timely and accurate 

[than the long form].”67

CONTINUED OPERATIONAL QUALITY AND 

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ACS: 2001–2002

In 2001 and 2002, the Census Bureau continued to 

test the feasibility of the ACS. The Census Bureau 

conducted the Supplementary Survey as a nationwide test of ACS methods, as it had during the 2000 

Census (refer to the previous section), and continued to test the ACS in 31 test sites (Chapter 3). The 

sample size for the combined Supplementary Surveys 

and the 31 ACS test sites was 890,000 housing 

units in 2001 and about 820,000 in 2002. While 

the Supplementary Surveys used ACS methods, the 

sample design did not reflect the ACS sample design 

for full implementation because the surveys were 

designed to provide data for states and large entities 

of 250,000 or more, not to provide data on small 

areas.68

An assessment of the 2001–2002 ACS tests indicated 

that the survey continued to be operationally feasible 

and was ready for full implementation. Overall, the 

assessment found that during the tests the Census 

Bureau continued to conduct basic operations on 

schedule and workload projections were close to 

actual workloads, which allowed the Census Bureau 

to predict staffing needs.69 In addition, response rates 

for the three data collection modes—mail, CATI, and 

66 Scardamalia, “The American Community Survey: General 

Commentary on the Findings From External Evaluations,” p. 301; 

Gage, “Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community 

Survey 1999-2001 Estimates,” p. 16; Hough and Swanson, “The 

1999-2001 American Community Survey and the 2000 Census 

Data Quality Comparisons,” p. 32; and Van Auken, et al., “American 

Community Survey and Census Comparison Final Analytical 

Report,” p. 63. 67 Hough and Swanson, “The 1999-2001 American Community 

Survey and the 2000 Census Data Quality Comparisons,” p. 32. 68 U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey Operations 

Plan," release 1, March 2003, p. 12. Between 1999 and 2001, most of 

the 31 ACS test sites were sampled at an annual rate of 5 percent 

(Houston, Texas, was sampled at 1 percent and a few other counties 

were sampled at 3 percent). In February 2002, the sampling rate in 

all counties was reduced to 2.5 percent, except for Houston which 

remained at 1 percent. 69 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, May 2004, pp. iv, 22–23.
144 U.S. Census Bureau

CAPI—stayed steady or improved (Table 4). Low survey nonresponse rates helped assure data users that 

the potential for nonresponse bias was minimal.70

Generally, the Census Bureau conducted ACS operations on or ahead of schedule in 2001 and 2002, 

demonstrating that: (1) the program was feasible on 

a larger scale level, (2) procedures to address processing error were effective, and (3) the ACS could 

deliver high-quality survey data.71 For example:

Questionnaire Keying. In 2001 and 2002 the Census 

Bureau met its production goal of keying questionnaires within 2 weeks of receipt for 90 percent 

of questionnaires mailed back by respondents. By 

meeting this goal, the proportion of ACS cases sent 

to telephone interviewers remained stable and the 

workload was predictable for planning purposes. In 

addition, the keying error rate was very low at about 

0.05 percent of keyed fields.72

70 Ibid., p. 21. The CATI response rate was 65 percent in 2001, but 

dropped in the second half of 2002 when thousands of telephone 

numbers became available from the 2000 Census. This increased 

both the proportion of the total sample that makes up the CATI 

workload and the number of successful interviews but decreased 

the response rate because many of the 2000 Census phone 

numbers turned out to be for the wrong person (for reasons such as 

a change in service or the respondent having moved). In addition, 

the respondent refusal rate for CAPI decreased from 3.8 percent 

to 2.5 percent during the same time period. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Report 6, pp. 12, 16–17, 20–21. Refer to the discussion in the previous 

section regarding nonresponse bias. 71 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, May 2004, p. 3.

72 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, pp. v, 6. Keying is the process 

of capturing responses from of mailed-in forms and producing a 

data file. In order to ensure subsequent operations and processing 

activities are conducted on schedule, the Census Bureau set a 

goal of completing keying within 2 weeks of receipt. The Census 

Bureau experienced some delays at the end of 2002 as the ACS was 

transitioning between two versions of the questionnaire, requiring 

modifications to the Edit Followup software. 

Edit Follow-up. The proportion of cases requiring Edit Followup remained stable at one-third of 

the mail response universe while the percentage of 

cases sent to Edit Followup that were not contacted 

dropped from 30 percent in 2000 to 4 percent in 

2002. Improvements in the Edit Followup software 

program and staffing changes also contributed to 

an increase in response rates for Edit Followup. 

Compared to the 48.4 percent response rate in 2000, 

the response rates for Edit Followup were 74.3 and 

83.5 percent in 2001 and 2002, respectively.73

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA). Staffing 

changes for TQA helped eliminate problems with the 

Edit Followup operation, as mentioned above. By 

2002, 33 people from a combination of CATI and Edit 

Followup staff were handling TQA calls during peak 

hours and fewer than half that number worked during 

nonpeak hours.74 In addition, the Census Bureau 

began to develop an interactive voice response (IVR) 

system for TQA to assist with call volume.75

73 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, pp. 8–9. Edit Followup involves 

an automated program checking the data for completeness and 

consistency after the NPC receives and keys questionnaires. If 

critical items are left blank or the person count does not match 

the number of persons listed, a telephone interviewer contacts 

the respondent to obtain the required information. In 2000, heavy 

Telephone Questionnaire Assistance (TQA) workload hampered 

the effectiveness of Edit Followup because TQA operators also 

conducted Edit Followup interviews. 74 In 2000, 15 operators handled all of the TQA calls as well as 

working on Edit Followup. In the latter part of 2000, Field Division 

(FLD) changed its procedures and CATI interviewers began to 

handle a portion of the TQA calls. In 2001 and 2002, FLD increased 

the number of staff answering TQA calls during peak calling hours 

(in the evening). U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, p. 8. 75 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 6, p. 7. IVR is an automated 

telephone call-in system whereby callers can find answers 

to common questions by selecting from options on a menu. 

Information available via IVR included the explanations of the 

purpose of the ACS, the confidentiality of responses, and the reason 

for and uses of questions including income, race, and ancestry. 

Table 4.

ACS Workloads and Response Rates: 2000–2002

Survey component 2000 2001 2002

  Total response rate (percent). . . . . . . .

Mailout

Workload. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Response rate (percent). . . . . . . .

CATI

Workload. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Response rate (percent). . . . . . . .

CAPI

Workload. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Response rate (percent). . . . . . . .

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 6: The 

2001-2002 Operational Feasibility Report," May 2004, pp. 5, 12, 16, 20. 
U.S. Census Bureau 145

INCORPORATION OF ACS INTO 

2010 CENSUS PLANNING

From the earliest stages, planners made the ACS an 

integral part of the plan for the 2010 Census.76 The 

Census Bureau determined that repeating the 2000 

Census design in 2010 would be “an unwise strategy 

and . . . a recipe for failure.”77 Although the Census 

Bureau considered the 2000 Census a success, both 

operationally and in terms of coverage, the success of 

the 2000 Census resulted primarily from a large infusion of funds in the last couple of years of the census 

lifecycle and the acceptance of a high-risk strategy to develop systems and procedures. The 2010 

Census likely would face its own challenges, such 

as scarce resources, new technology, and increased 

privacy concerns. After studying those challenges, 

the Census Bureau concluded, “the challenges of 

exponential demographic and technological change 

preclude repeating Census 2000 in 2010 . . . we are 

addressing the challenges by taking advantage of 

multiple opportunities and by adopting a bold and 

innovative strategy for reengineering 2010.”78

Thus, the Census Bureau identified three components that were crucial to its reengineering strategy: 

(1) modernizing and improving the Census Bureau’s 

address list and geographic databases, (2) taking a 

short-form census, and (3) supplying long-form-type 

data on a continuous basis through the ACS.79 The 

Census Bureau emphasized how the three components of the reengineered census are interrelated: 

“Both the [Master Address File/Topologically 

Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing 

(MAF/TIGER)] modernization and the ACS implementation are integral to a successful 2010 census design 

. . . To take advantage of a fully implemented ACS, 

the Census Bureau requires a complete and accurate 

MAF/TIGER. An accurate MAF/TIGER helps ensure 

76 Refer to Chapter 2 of the 2010 Census History for more details 

on the planning process for the 2010 Census. 77 Preston Jay Waite, Sally Obenski, and Lisa E. Buckley, 

“2010 Census Planning: The Strategy,” paper presented at 

the Joint Statistical Meetings, Atlanta, GA, August 2001, 

accessed on September 24, 2013, at <www.census.gov/history/

pdf/2010planning-thestrategy.pdf>. 78 Ruth Ann Killion, Sally M. Obenski, and Lisa Buckley, “2010 

Census Planning: Demographic and Technological Change 

Escalating Complexity,” paper presented at the Joint Statistical 

Meetings, Atlanta, GA, August 2001, accessed on September 24, 

2013, at <www.census.gov/history/pdf/2010planningdemographicalandtechnical.pdf>. 79 Susan M. Miskura, chief, Decennial Management Division, 

U.S. Census Bureau, to Preston Jay Waite, assistant director for 

Decennial Census, re: 2010 Census Planning, FY2001-FY2003, 

Decennial Directorate 2010 Census Planning Memorandum Series, 

no. 1., October 25, 2000, and Waite, Obenski, and Buckley, “2010 

Census Planning: The Strategy.” 

that the data collected by the ACS correctly reflect 

the population and housing characteristics for small 

geographic areas and groups. On the other hand, a 

complete and accurate MAF/TIGER depends on the 

implementation of the ACS. The ongoing presence of 

ACS staff enables the timely update of the address 

list, including the identification of new construction 

and newly converted group quarters.”80

The goals for the reengineered 2010 Census were to 

increase the relevancy and timeliness of long-form 

data, reduce operational risk, improve coverage 

accuracy, and contain costs. The Census Bureau 

had determined that in order to successfully fulfill 

its mission of collecting and disseminating demographic data, it had to simplify its decennial census 

operations. This could be achieved by removing the 

resource-intensive long-form data collection and the 

compilation of address information from the 2010 

Census design and, instead, conducting these activities throughout the decade. This involved continuously updating the address list, modernizing the 

MAF/TIGER system, and conducting the ongoing 

ACS.81

The ACS offered to improve the 2010 Census by 

reducing costs (such as for printing and TQA), 

improving response rates (thus reducing the 

nonresponse follow-up workload), and assisting in the 

ongoing update of the address list. It also would provide an opportunity to test improvements in decennial census methods. The Census Bureau noted that 

the ACS more accurately reflected the rapid demographic changes occurring in the United States which 

“had outpaced the usefulness of the decennial long 

form,” in light of the need for current data.82 Further, 

in the increasingly information-based economy, government agencies, private businesses, and nonprofit 

organizations needed current and reliable data for 

planning purposes. Finally, full implementation of the 

ACS would support 2010 planning and improve the 

decennial design in several ways, including:83

• Creating opportunities to innovate and streamline 

in ways and on a scale not possible when longform data collection was included.

80 Waite, et al., “2010 Census Planning: The Strategy.” 

81 U.S. Census Bureau, Reengineering the Decennial Census: The 

Baseline Design for 2010, version 1.5, May 2003, attachment to 2010 

Census Planning Memoranda Series, no. 14, June 3, 2003, pp. 2–3, 

and Waite, et al., “2010 Census Planning: The Strategy.” 82 Waite, et al., “2010 Census Planning: The Strategy.” 

83 Waite, et al., “2010 Census Planning: The Strategy.” 
146 U.S. Census Bureau

• Allowing decennial census planners to focus on 

the basics—determining the best methods to 

accurately count the nation’s population. 

• Providing current profiles of the population in 

order to determine how to best approach each 

geographic area.

• Facilitating 2010 Census enumeration activities 

by maintaining a continuous presence and relationships in local areas.

• Allowing for the testing of new technologies to 

make data collection and processing more efficient and cost effective. 

In June 2001, the Census Bureau developed the 

preliminary cost estimates for the 2010 Census, 

noting that the ACS, MAF/TIGER modernization, and 

the short-form-only census were highly integrated, 

complementary activities and that “one [would] not 

work to its full potential without the others.”84 The 

Census Bureau’s preliminary estimates suggested 

that implementing all three components would result 

in a net savings of $445 million compared to the 

cost of repeating the design of the 2000 Census. 

In particular, implementing the ACS would enable 

the Census Bureau to implement a short-form-only 

census in 2010, which would reduce the costs associated with scanning mail responses and the costs of 

Nonresponse Followup (NRFU) operations.85

Subsequent delays in the implementation of the full 

national sample of the ACS resulted in lowering the 

life cycle cost estimate of the 2010 Census but also 

delayed the first release of tract-level ACS data from 

2008 to 2010.86

DELAYS IN IMPLEMENTATION 

In order to move traditional long-form data collection 

to continuous data collection and ensure a smooth 

transition for data users, the Census Bureau originally 

84 U.S. Census Bureau, "Potential Life Cycle Savings for the 2010 

Census," June 2001, p. 1. 85 U.S. Census Bureau, "Potential Life Cycle Savings for the 

2010 Census," June 2001, p. 1-2, 6. For example, the Census Bureau 

originally planned to conduct NRFU with handheld computers 

(HHCs) that would include the short-form questionnaires, enabling 

census takers to collect short-form data more quickly and with less 

paper then in 2000. The electronic data entry would have resulted 

in additional savings by requiring less keying of data from paper 

forms at the data capture centers. Ultimately, however, the Census 

Bureau did not implement the use of HHCs for the 2010 Census. 

Refer to Chapter 3 of the 2010 Census History for more details on 

the issues surrounding the use of HHCs. 86 U.S. Census Bureau, Estimated Life Cycle Costs for the 

Reengineered 2010 Census of Population and Housing, June 2003, 

p. 4. 

planned to implement the ACS nationwide in 2003 

with an annual sample of 3 million households.87

Collection of full production data from 2003 to 2007 

would have made the ACS 5-year cumulative estimates available in 2008, 4 years earlier than if the 

2010 Census included a long-form questionnaire.88

However, budget restrictions and the resulting lag in 

survey design and testing delayed full implementation until January 2005 for housing units and January 

2006 for group quarters. 

Testing Voluntary Response

Background

In July 2000, the Subcommittee on the Census of the 

House Committee on Government Reform held its 

first hearing on the ACS. One focus of the hearing was 

whether the ACS should be mandatory or voluntary. 

Subcommittee Chairman Representative Daniel L. 

Miller noted stated that Congress could not “give its 

full blessing to the American Community Survey” until 

that and other issues were addressed.89 At the hearing, 

Census Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt noted that 

a mandatory ACS would not only be less costly than 

a voluntary ACS, but that “by saying it is mandatory, 

what we really are saying is that the federal government takes this seriously.”90 The following year, at its 

second hearing on the ACS, the House Subcommittee 

87 U.S. Census Bureau, "Potential Life Cycle Savings for the 2010 

Census," June 2001, p. 1. 88 Given the sample size for the ACS, the Census Bureau had 

determined it would be able to publish reliable annual ACS data 

only for states and cities, counties, and metropolitan areas with a 

population of more than 65,000. Data averaged over 3 years would 

provide reliable estimates for areas with a population between 

20,000 and 65,000, and 5-year averages would be available for 

all geographic areas down to the tract level. U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey Operations Plan, release 1, March 2003, 

p. 7, and Robert P. Parker, chief statistician, GAO, to Dave Weldon, 

M.D., chairman, and Dan Miller, vice-chairman, House Subcommittee 

on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization, Committee on 

Government Reform, re: The American Community Survey: Accuracy 

and Timeliness Issues, GAO-02-956R, September 30, 2002, p. 5. 89 Rep. Miller (R-FL) identified five questions to be discussed at 

the hearing: (1) is the ACS cost efficient, (2) should it be mandatory 

or voluntary, (3) are rural areas getting quality and timely data, 

(4) will the ACS be implemented in an accurate, efficient, and 

consistent manner, and (5) does the ACS address the privacy 

concerns of the American people? Miller stated, “Not until these 

questions and their components are answered satisfactorily can 

Congress give its full blessing to the American Community Survey.” 

The American Community Survey—A Replacement for the Census 

Long Form? Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Census of the 

House Committee on Government Reform, 106th Cong., 2nd Sess., 

July 20, 2000, serial no. 106-246, p. 2 (statement of Rep. Dan Miller). 90 "The American Community Survey—A Replacement for the 

Census Long Form?" p. 39 (statement of Kenneth Prewitt). Prewitt 

also noted that making the ACS voluntary would have implications 

for other government surveys stating that the ACS is “the platform 

against which all of the other surveys create their statistical 

controls." So if it is weakened by low response rates or item 

nonresponse, all of the other surveys will be weakened. Ibid., p. 40.
U.S. Census Bureau 147

on the Census again asked about the implications of a 

voluntary ACS. The Census Bureau’s Acting Director 

William G. Barron, Jr., stated, “if it is not mandatory 

the response rates will go down and costs would go 

up and accuracy would deteriorate . . . Our concern is 

maintaining response and maintaining the ability to 

provide accurate data.”91

Representative Miller brought up the issue again at 

the February 2002 appropriations hearing for the 

Department of Commerce, asking if the department 

had received a legal opinion on whether there was 

a legal requirement to make the ACS a mandatory survey. Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans 

responded that he had not received a legal opinion 

on the mandatory nature of the survey, but that much 

of the information collected by the ACS was required 

by various statutes. Miller concluded, “I think the 

question we want to explore further is the question of 

whether it is mandatory, or even necessary for technical reasons.”92

At the request of Representative Robert L. Barr, vice 

chairman of the House Committee on Government 

Reform, the GAO reviewed the legal basis for conducting the ACS and concluded in its April 2002 

response that the Census Bureau had authority 

under Title 13 of the U.S. Code to conduct the ACS 

as a mandatory survey.93 In a separate report, GAO 

noted that the Census Bureau had based its decision to conduct the ACS as a mandatory survey on 

earlier studies finding that response rates for mandatory surveys were higher than those of voluntary 

91 The Census Bureau’s Proposed American Community Survey 

[ACS], Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Census of the 

House Committee on Government Reform, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., 

June 13, 2001, serial no. 107-9, p. 35 (statement of William G. Barron, 

Jr.).92 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2003, hearings before a 

House Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, 107th 

Cong., 2nd Sess., February 27, 2002 (statements of Rep. Miller and 

Secretary Evans), accessed on September 24, 2013, at <www.gpo.

gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg81888/html/CHRG-107hhrg81888.

htm>. 93 Anthony H. Gamboa, general counsel, U.S. General Accounting 

Office, to Honorable Bob Barr, vice chairman, House Committee 

on Government Reform, April 4, 2002, B-289852, p. 5, and Panel 

on Research on Future Census Methods, Committee on National 

Statistics, Planning the 2010 Census, second interim report, The 

National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003, pp. 94–95. 

According to the Panel on Research on Future Census records, 

“The distinction between voluntary and mandatory is a significant 

one because it is believed that the “required by law” verbiage on 

census forms plays a role in raising response rates.” Ibid., p. 95.

surveys.94 After review, GAO agreed that voluntary 

nationwide surveys had lower response rates than the 

ACS conducted in 1996 (for which implementation 

took place in a few areas designated as test sites) and 

the C2SS. GAO noted, however, that “because there 

has been no testing of response rates for a voluntary mail survey of households of the size and scope 

of the ACS,” it was not known if a voluntary survey 

could obtain the same response rate as a mandatory 

survey given sufficient funding. Thus, GAO asked 

the Census Bureau to estimate the additional costs 

of conducting a voluntary ACS. The Census Bureau 

estimated that it would cost an additional $20 to $35 

million per year to conduct the ACS as a voluntary 

survey and achieve the same overall response rate as 

a mandatory ACS.95

Nonetheless, in September 2002 Representative 

David J. Weldon, concerned with privacy issues, 

requested a formal test of the ACS as a voluntary, 

rather than mandatory, survey.96 According to a letter 

from Representative Weldon, the Census Bureau 

would need to know the results of that experiment 

before it could project the costs of the new survey 

and request the necessary funding. The minutes 

of the ACS team leaders meeting in October 2002 

noted, “No decision on future funding of the ACS will 

be made until the voluntary vs. mandatory results 

can be evaluated.”97 In making appropriations for FY 

2003, the House of Representatives noted that there 

was insufficient information to determine the benefits of a mandatory ACS (as specified in the Census 

Bureau’s budget request) compared to a voluntary 

ACS. Thus, in February 2003, Congress appropriated 

94 The Census Bureau had conducted an experiment as part of 

the 1990 Census that showed that a voluntary survey had lower 

response than a mandatory survey, by about 9 percentage points. 

Similarly, the Census Bureau’s analysis of mandatory and voluntary 

response to the 1989 Survey of Pollution Abatement Costs and 

Expenditures showed a 20 percent difference in response between 

the voluntary and mandatory versions. Robert P. Parker, chief 

statistician, GAO, to Dave Weldon, M.D., Chairman, and Dan Miller, 

Vice-Chairman, House Subcommittee on Civil Service, Census, and 

Agency Organization, Committee on Government Reform, re: The 

American Community Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues, 

GAO-02-956R, September 30, 2002, pp. 19–20. 95 Parker to Weldon and Miller, GAO-02-956R, p. 19.

96 David Weldon and Daniel Miller, House Committee on 

Government Reform, to Honorable Frank Wolf, chairman, House 

Committee on Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations, 

September 18, 2002, cited in U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st 

Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American 

Community Survey; Report 3: Testing the Use of Voluntary 

Methods," December 2003, p. 1. 97 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Office, 

Minutes of Team Leaders’ Meeting, October 8, 2002. 
148 U.S. Census Bureau

$1 million to the Census Bureau “to test the response 

rates of both a voluntary and a mandatory survey.”98

2003 ACS Voluntary Test

Between March and April 2003, the Census Bureau 

tested the effects of a voluntary ACS on mail 

response rates and associated follow-up costs. 

Messages on the envelopes, letters accompanying 

the survey, and brochures enclosed with the form 

explained that the survey was either mandatory or 

voluntary, with two types of voluntary survey design 

(refer to Table 5 for variations in wording for the 

98 U.S. House of Representatives, "Making Further Continuing 

Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and For Other Purposes," 

Conference Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 2, Report 108-10, 108th 

Cong., 1st Sess., February 13, 2003, p. 689.

Table 5.

Messages Used in American Community Survey Mail Materials

Material 2002 Mandatory Survey 2003 Standard Voluntary Survey 2003 Direct Voluntary Survey

Envelope YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED 

BY LAW

YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT 

TO YOUR COMMUNITY

YOUR RESPONSE IS IMPORTANT 

TO YOUR COMMUNITY

Enclosed 

letter 

Please take about 40 minutes of 

your time to assist your community 

greatly by completing and mailing 

back your copy of the American 

Community Survey, as required by 

law. We are conducting this survey 

under the authority of Title 13, 

United States Code, sections 141-

193, and 221. Title 13 also imposes 

penalties for not responding to the 

American Community Survey.

The U.S. Census Bureau chose your 

address, not you personally, as part 

of a randomly selected sample. 

The Census Bureau is required 

by U.S. law to keep your answers 

confidential. Your participation in 

the survey is important; however, 

you may decline to answer any or all 

questions. The enclosed brochure 

answers frequently asked questions 

about the survey.

The U.S. Census Bureau chose your 

address, not you personally, as part 

of a randomly selected sample. 

The Census Bureau is required 

by U.S. law to keep your answers 

confidential. The enclosed brochure 

answers frequently asked questions 

about the survey.

Enclosed 

brochure

(No mention of the mandatory 

nature of the survey in the 

brochure.)

Your participation in this voluntary 

survey is very important to your 

country and to your community. 

You may decline to answer any or all 

questions.

Your participation in this voluntary 

survey is very important to your 

country and to your community. 

You may decline to answer any or all 

questions.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey; Report 11: 

Testing Voluntary Methods – Additional Results," December 2004, Appendix A.

comparison samples.)99 For the purposes of determining the impact of making the ACS voluntary, the 

Census Bureau compared data from the 2003 ACS 

Voluntary Test to ACS data from the mandatory test 

in March and April 2002. 

99 The 2003 ACS sample included 12 monthly samples of 

about 70,000 addresses. Thus, the ACS Voluntary Test universe 

was comprised of the 140,000 sample cases for March and April 

2003. Seventy-five percent of the sample addresses received 

experimental mail treatments that included materials explaining the 

survey was voluntary. There were two voluntary mail treatments 

used. The “Standard Voluntary” treatment used a standard survey 

approach to explain the voluntary nature of the survey; the “Direct 

Voluntary” approach more directly explained that the survey was 

voluntary. For the comparison group, the Census Bureau used the 

“Current Mandatory” approach, which used the standard wording 

to indicate that the survey was mandatory. The Census Bureau 

also tested revised materials stating the survey was mandatory 

that it had developed to be more user-friendly. In addition, the 

Census Bureau conducted all follow-up operations by telephone 

and personal visits using voluntary methods, regardless of the mail 

treatment. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 3, pp. 2–4. In a subsequent 

analysis of the data, the Census Bureau compared variations in the 

wording of both the voluntary and mandatory samples. Making 

the voluntary forms more user friendly had only a small effect on 

offsetting the decrease in mail participation. U.S. Census Bureau, 

"Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing 

the American Community Survey: Report 11: Testing Voluntary 

Methods - Additional Results, December 2004," pp. v, 2, 8.
U.S. Census Bureau 149

The results of the test revealed that both voluntary 

survey designs had lower cooperation rates100 for all 

modes of data collection than the mandatory survey (Table 6), with the Standard Voluntary Survey 

receiving more responses than the Direct Voluntary 

survey by a few percentage points. For example, the 

mail cooperation rate for the voluntary survey was 

more than 20 percentage points less than that for 

the mandatory survey.101 The decrease in cooperation 

rates across mailout, phone and in-person interviews 

resulted in a 11.6 percent drop in the survey interview 

rate and a 4.2 percent drop in the weighted survey 

100 The cooperation rate is the proportion of all cases interviewed 

out of all eligible units ever contacted. Thus, the denominator 

for the mail cooperation rate is all occupied units included in the 

mailout. The denominators for the telephone and personal visit 

cooperation rates include all occupied units contacted during follow 

up. U.S. Census Bureau, Report 3, Appendix 2. 101 Since the 2003 test included a control group that received 

a mandatory ACS, Census Bureau staff also compared the 

cooperation rates for that group to the group that received 

the 2003 voluntary survey. The results were similar: the mail 

cooperation rate for the mandatory ACS was 57.3 percent, 

compared to 38.8 percent for the voluntary group. U.S. Census 

Bureau, Report 3, pp. 6–7.

response rate.102 In addition, the change to a voluntary survey shifted respondents from mail participation to participating by telephone or personal visit 

follow-up (Table 7). 

Analyses of the test results demonstrated that declining cooperation and shifts in response mode would 

have consequences for both cost and reliability. First, 

personal interview follow-up activities are about 10 

times more expensive than mail and telephone data 

collection activities. Thus, the more cases requiring 

personal interviews, the higher the survey costs.103

Second, the reliability of the data depends on the 

participation of a sufficient percentage of the initial 

102 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 3, pp. v–vi, 12–14. The survey 

interview rate is the ratio of the final number of completed 

interviews from all three modes of data collection (mail, telephone, 

and personal visit follow-up) to the initial sample. The weighted 

survey response rate is the number of total interviews from 

all three modes of data collection divided by the sum of the 

number of interviews and the number of noninterviews (refusals, 

break-offs, noncontacts, and other noninterviews). Only eligible 

sample housing units are included in the denominator of this 

rate. The weighted survey response rate is higher than the survey 

interview rate because only eligible cases in the final sample, after 

subsampling, are included in the denominator of the weighted 

survey response rate. 103 U.S. Census Bureau, Report 3, p. v. 

Table 6.

Cooperation Rates by Mode, Survey Interview Rates, and Weighted Survey Response Rates: 

Mandatory vs. Voluntary Survey

(In percent)

Mode 2002 

mandatory survey

2003 standard 

voluntary survey Difference

Mail cooperation rate. . . . . . . . 

Telephone cooperation rate. . . . . . . . 

Personal visit cooperation rate. . . . . . . .

Survey interview rate. . . . . . . . 

Weighted survey response rate. . . . . . . .

Note: Refer to the footnotes in the text for definitions of the rates.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey; Report 3: 

Testing the Use of Voluntary Methods," December 2003, pp. 6-8, 12-14. 

Table 7.

Interview Mode Distribution: Mandatory vs. Voluntary Survey

(In percent)

Mode 2002 

mandatory survey

2003 standard 

voluntary survey Difference

    Total. . . . . . . . .

Mail. . . . . . . . 

Telephone. . . . . . .

Personal visit. . . . . . . .

Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Interview mode distributions were based on the final weighted estimate of occupied 

units and indicate the proportion of the data that were collected by mail, telephone, and personal visit. The distributions were weighted to reflect 

the probabilities of selection and the subsampling factors and do not summarize the percent of actual interviews collected by each mode. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey; Report 3: 

Testing the Use of Voluntary Methods," December 2003, pp. 6–8. and Ibid., p. 8. 
150 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 8.

American Community Survey Budget Requests and Appropriatons: Fiscal Year 2001 Through Fiscal 

Year 2008

(In millions of dollars)

Fiscal year Requested Appropriated Difference

20011. . . . . . . . 

20021. . . . . . . 

2003. . . . . . . . . 

2004. . . . . . . 

2005. . . . . . . . . .

2006. . . . . . . . . 

2007. . . . . . . . . 

2008. . . . . . . . 

1 Amounts for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are for the continuous measurement program, which included the American Community Survey.

Source: Office of Management and Budget, "Budget of the United States Government, FY 2001–2011," accessed on September 24, 2013, 

at <www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/budget>; Office of Management and Budget, "Statistical Programs of the United States Government, FY 

2005-2010," accessed on September 24, 2013, at <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/regulatory_affairs/reports_previous_yrs/>; 

"Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2003, and For Other Purposes," Conference Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 2, 

H. Rep. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., February 12, 2003, pp. 688-689; House Committee on Appropriations, report to accompany H.R. 2799 

(Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2004), H. Rep. 108-221, 

108th Cong., 1st Sess., July 21, 2003, p. 77; and "Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and 

Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and For Other Purposes," Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 2673, H. Rep. 

108-401, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., Nov. 25, pp. 65-66.

sample.104 Any drop in cooperation by mail and 

telephone has a critical impact on the reliability of 

the estimates. The major impact is a loss in the total 

number of interviews conducted which means each 

interview has to be weighted higher.105 As shown in 

Table 2, even after mail and telephone attempts, 44.3 

percent of the voluntary cases remained nonrespondents, compared to 31.6 percent under mandatory 

methods. Thus, an additional 12.7 percent of personal 

visit cases carried higher sampling weights in the 

voluntary survey.106

The study estimated that if the Census Bureau implemented a voluntary ACS, it would need to increase 

the initial sample size from 3 million to 3.7 million 

in order to maintain the same level of reliability as 

the mandatory design. Furthermore, the workload 

for telephone follow-up would increase by over 40 

percent and the workload for personal visit follow-up 

would increase by over 60 percent. Thus, the study 

concluded that conducting a voluntary ACS would 

require at least an additional $59.2 million per year.107

104 Ibid. To maintain an acceptable level of reliability, 70 percent 

of the initial sample of 3 million must be interviewed to produce 

reliable estimates. 105 Because of the two-phase design of the ACS, only a 

subsample of nonrespondents (after mail and telephone attempts) 

are eligible for a personal visit follow-up. In the 2003 ACS 

Voluntary Test, a greater number of cases remained after mail 

and telephone interview attempts, so a larger proportion of cases 

were subsampled and, thus, carried larger sampling weights. Thus, 

the reliability of ACS estimates would suffer if the survey were 

conducted using voluntary methods without an increase in the 

sample size. Ibid., pp. 12–13. 106 Ibid., pp. 9–10. 107 Ibid., p. 17. Also, refer to Jennifer D. Williams, Congressional 

Research Service, "The American Community Survey: Development, 

Implementation, and Issues for Congress," June 17, 2013.

Appropriations for the ACS

The Census Bureau had planned to implement the 

ACS in fiscal year 2003. Full implementation would 

expand the sample to 3 million and include every 

county and municipio in the United States and Puerto 

Rico. However, budget restrictions and Congress’ 

request that the Census Bureau study the impact of 

making the survey voluntary, pushed full implementation to January 2005 for housing units and January 

2006 for group quarters.

Fiscal Year 2001–2002. In fiscal years 2001 and 

2002, the president’s budget request for the CM 

program, which included the ACS, was approximately 

$25 million. The budget requests noted that “The 

CM program will make the Census Bureau the premier source for current population and housing data 

needed for both near and long-term economic development.”108 Funding during these years somewhat 

mirrored the budget requests, signifying congressional approval for the program (Table 8).

Fiscal Years 2003–2004. The February 2003 conference report accompanying the House appropriations 

108 The Continuous Measurement program also included the 

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program. Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Budget of the United States 

Government, FY 2001, “Analytical Perspectives,” p. 206, accessed 

on September 24, 2013, at <www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

analytical-perspectives/>, and OMB, Budget of the United 

States Government, FY 2002, “Analytical Perspectives,” p. 208, 

accessed on September 24, 2013, at <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/

collectiontab.action>. In preparation for full implementation of the 

ACS, the Census Bureau placed the American Community Survey 

Office under the direction of the associate director for the Decennial 

Census in 2003. U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: 

American Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009, p. 2–4.
U.S. Census Bureau 151

bill noted that although the administration had 

requested funding of $123.9 million for the ACS, the 

House recommended $57.1 million plus an additional 

$1 million to test the response rates of both a mandatory and a voluntary ACS.109, 110

In May 2003, the House Subcommittee on 

Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental 

Relations and the Census held a hearing on the ACS. 

In his opening remarks, subcommittee chairman 

Representative Adam H. Putnam noted several obstacles to Congress making a decision on fully funding 

the ACS. Putnam stated that the Census Bureau 

needed to “demonstrate to both the authorizers and 

appropriators that fully funding the ACS will eliminate duplicative survey[s] at the Census Bureau” and, 

thus, save taxpayers money.111 Citing privacy concerns, Putnam added that the Census Bureau “should 

seriously explore new and innovative ways to solicit 

voluntary cooperation from the residents of the 

Nation.”112 Putnam also voiced concern that declining 

response rates to surveys in general could have implications for future costs of the ACS. Census Bureau 

Director Louis Kincannon assured the congressman 

that the Census Bureau expected to keep costs under 

control “and to use every device and every technique 

at our hands to try to keep that response rate up.” 113

The administration’s budget request for FY 2004 

included $64.8 million for the ACS, an increase of $7.7 

million over the FY 2003 appropriation (though just 

over $59 million less than the FY 2003 request). That 

amount would permit the full implementation of the 

ACS to occur in the fourth quarter of FY 2004.114 In 

109 "Making Further Continuing Appropriations for the Fiscal Year 

2003, and For Other Purposes," Conference Report to Accompany 

H.J. Res. 2, H. Rep. 108-10, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., February 12, 2003, 

pp. 688–689. Refer to the section on the 2003 ACS Voluntary Test. 110 Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, Committee on 

National Statistics, Planning the 2010 Census, second interim report, 

The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003, p. 80. 111 "The American Community Survey: The Challenges of 

Eliminating the Long Form From the 2010 Census," hearing before 

the House Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, 

Intergovernmental Relations and the Census of the Comm. on 

Government Reform, 108th Cong., 1st Sess., February 12, 2003, 

serial no. 108-97, May 13, 2003, p. 2 (statement of Rep. Putnam). 112 The American Community Survey: The Challenges of 

Eliminating the Long Form From the 2010 Census, p. 2 (statement of 

Rep. Putnam). 113 The American Community Survey: The Challenges of 

Eliminating the Long Form From the 2010 Census, p. 27 (statement 

of Charles Louis Kincannon). Kincannon also discussed the $123.9 

million budget request for the ACS when Putnam asked him how 

much the ACS would cost every year until 2010. Ibid., p. 30. 114 Carol M. Van Horn, assistant director for the American 

Community Survey and decennial census, to Lawrence S. McGinn, 

chief, American Community Survey Office, re: "Survey and 

Operational Design for Taking the American Community Survey 

(ACS) to Full Implementation," ACS Decision Memorandum 

No. 03-04, October 22, 2003.

October 2003, the House Appropriations Committee 

voiced its support for the ACS, stating it supported 

“the Administration’s efforts to collect long-form 

data on an on-going basis rather than waiting for 

once-a-decade decennial long form data.”115 Thus, the 

committee recommended that Congress approve the 

requested amount of $64.8 million. The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2004, signed into law on 

January 23, 2004, authorized $64.8 million for the 

ACS for FY 2004.116

FY 2005. The Administration’s budget request for 

FY 2005, submitted in early 2004, included $165.6 

million for full implementation of the ACS.117 Overall, 

the Bush Administration requested a budget increase 

of nearly $220 million over FY 2004 for the Census 

Bureau.118 However, in March 2004 members of the 

Senate Appropriations Committee questioned the 

need for increased funding so far in advance of the 

census. For example, Senator Ernest F. Hollings questioned “ramping up [spending] 7 to 6 years ahead 

of time for the 2010 Census” at a time when the 

Commerce Department suggested cutting $67 million 

from a federal program that supported businesses 

creating manufacturing jobs.119 Other senators asked 

why the Commerce Department was cutting funding 

for programs to monitor and study climate change. 

115 U.S. House of Representative, Committee on Appropriations, 

report to accompany H.R. 2799 (Departments of Commerce, 

Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2004), H. Rep. 108-221, 108th Cong., 

1st Sess., July 21, 2003, p. 77. 116 House Comm. on Appropriations, report to accompany 

H.R. 2799, p. 77; Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, Pub. 

L. No. 108-199, January 23, 2004. Overall, however, the Census 

Bureau’s total FY 2004 appropriation was $53.2 million below the 

President’s request. Office of Management and Budget, Statistical 

Programs of the United States Government, FY 2005, p. 8, 

accessed on September 24, 2013, at <www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

regulatory_affairs/reports_previous_yrs/>. 117 Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Programs of the 

United States Government, FY 2005, p. 12, accessed on September 

24, 2013, at <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/

files/omb/inforeg/05statprog.pdf> and Office of Management 

and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States 

Government, Fiscal Year 2005, p. 45, accessed on September 24, 

2013, at <www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2005-PER/pdf/

BUDGET-2005-PER.pdf>. 118 Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005, 

hearing before the Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Appropriations, March 2, 2004, p. 6 (prepared statement of 

Secretary Donald L. Evans). 119 Senate Appropriations Hearing, March 2, 2004, p. 26 

(statement of Sen. Hollings). Hollings did not ask a direct question 

concerning the cut of $67 million from the Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership. However, when previously asked about the budget cuts 

for the program, Evans stated that “this was one of those tough 

choices” that had to be made in light of reduced appropriations 

in FY 2004. Senate appropriations hearing, March 2, 2004, p. 21 

(statement of Donald L. Evans). 
152 U.S. Census Bureau

In questions for the Department submitted subsequent to the hearing, Appropriations Subcommittee 

Chair Senator Judd A. Gregg asked for an explanation 

of the “extraordinary” increase in the Department’s 

budget request for the Census Bureau.120 In his written response, Secretary Evans stated that the funding 

increase would enable the Census Bureau to implement the ACS in every county in the United States 

and Puerto Rico, including expanding the sample to 

250,000 addresses per month. The additional funds 

would also pay for MAF/TIGER enhancements, and 

the 2005 Census Test, among other planning, testing, 

and development activities for the 2010 Census.121

Later that year, the National Research Council panel 

designated to review the early planning process for 

the 2010 Census stated that it “encourage[d] full congressional funding of the ACS and are heartened that 

the funds for launch of the full-scale ACS in late fiscal 

2004 have been approved.”122 The panel continued, 

“It is essential, however, that Congress recognize 

that funding of the ACS is a long-term commitment. The benefits of the ACS will be jeopardized 

if the survey program is faced with oscillating 

budget commitments. Cuts in funding (and with 

them reductions in sample size) will impair the 

overall quality of the survey, with the most pronounced impact on the ability to produce estimates for small geographic areas and population 

groups.”123

In the July 2004 House report accompanying 

the FY 2005 appropriations bill, the Committee 

on Appropriations again voiced its support of an 

ongoing ACS to replace decennial long-form data. 

However, the committee did not recommend funding the full budget request for the ACS, “due to the 

belief that this function may be postponed for an 

additional year without increasing the risk to the 

120 Senate appropriations hearing, March 2, 2004, p. 33 

(questions submitted by Sen. Gregg). 121 Senate appropriations hearing, March 2, 2004, pp. 33–34 

(written response of Donald L. Evans). 122 Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, Committee 

on National Statistics, Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and 

Challenges, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004, 

p. 125. 123 Panel on Research on Future Census Methods, Reengineering 

the 2010 Census, p. 127.

overall planning process.”124 Thus, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 authorized the Houserecommended amount of $146 million for the ACS, 

nearly $20 million less than requested.125

Full Implementation of the ACS

Despite budget limitations, the Census Bureau fully 

implemented the ACS in 2005. With this, the ACS 

expanded from the 1,240 counties in the C2SS and 

ACS test sites to all 3,141 counties in the United 

States, all 78 municipios in Puerto Rico, and the 

District of Columbia. In addition, the annual ACS sample increased from 800,000 to 3 million addresses.126

Table 9 depicts the impact on workloads as the ACS 

transitioned from it demonstration phase (between 

2000 and 2004) and full implementation.

LANGUAGE RESEARCH AND THE SPANISH 

LANGUAGE QUESTIONNAIRE

In 2002–2003, ACS staff conducted research on 

the quality of data from households with limited 

English proficiency, including assessments to learn 

how Spanish speakers interpreted survey questions 

and whether they understood the questions and key 

terms as intended. Furthermore, the Census Bureau 

conducted focus groups to examine methods used 

by interviewers to conduct interviews with persons 

of limited English proficiency, and to determine if 

there were inconsistencies in the ways field interviewers handled such interviews.127 This research 

was part of a larger effort throughout the Census 

Bureau to develop a plan for language assistance to 

ensure high quality data from non-English-speaking 

households.128

124 U.S. House of Representative, Committee on Appropriations, 

report to accompany H.R. 4754 (Departments of Commerce, 

Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2005), H. Rep. 108-576, 108th Cong., 

2nd Sess., July 1, 2004, p. 68. 125 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, 

Pub. L. No. 108-447, December 8, 2004. 126 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009, p. 2-4. 127 Pamela McGovern, Deborah Griffin, and Larry McGinn, 

“Language Action Plan for the American Community Survey,” 

presentation to the Decennial Census Advisory Committee, May 8–9, 

2003, pp. 2–3. 128 The plan consisted of four interrelated components: (1) 

translation guidelines, (2) pretesting standards, (3) qualitative and 

quantitative research, and (4) sociolinguistic research on language 

use. Lorena Carrasco, “The American Community Survey (ACS) 

en Español: Using Cognitive Interviews to Test the Functional 

Equivalence of Questionnaire Translations,” 2003, accessed 

at <www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/workingpapers/2003/adrm/ssm2003-17.pdf>. 
U.S. Census Bureau 153

According to data from the Census 2000 

Supplementary Survey (C2SS), an estimated 3.8 

million households were “linguistically isolated” (no 

household member aged 14 or over reported speaking English “very well”). Of these households, 2.3 (60 

percent) spoke Spanish only.129 A review of the distribution of responses across the three modes of data 

collection in the C2SS further revealed that linguistically isolated Spanish-speaking households had the 

lowest percentage of households response by mail 

(26.3 percent, compared to 62.7 percent of Englishspeaking households) and the highest percentage of 

interviews interviewed by CAPI (62.8 percent for linguistically isolated Spanish-speaking households and 

28.7 percent for English-speaking households).130

Quantitative Quality Assessments

To assess the quality of data from households with 

limited English proficiency, researchers compared 

item nonresponse for households that speak English 

only, households that speak a language other than 

English (but have someone over the age of 14 who 

129 Pamela McGovern and Deborah Griffin, “Quality Assessment 

of Data Collected From Non-English Speaking Households in the 

American Community Survey,” presentation to the Census Advisory 

Committee on the African American Population, the American 

Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian Population, the 

Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander Populations, May 5–7, 2003, pp. 4–5. 130 McGovern and Griffin, “Quality Assessment of Data 

Collected From Non-English Speaking Households in the American 

Community Survey,” pp. 3–5.

is proficient in English), and linguistically isolated 

households.131

Using combined data from both the C2SS and the 

2001 Supplementary Survey (01SS), researchers 

calculated two allocation rates: one across all housing items and one across all population items. The 

results showed that after combining all interview 

modes, allocation rates for linguistically isolated 

households were only slightly higher than the overall allocation rates for households speaking English 

only. Although the mail allocation rates for Spanishspeaking households were significantly higher than 

households speaking English only, Spanish-speaking 

households interviewed by CAPI had significantly 

lower allocation rates than English-only households. 

In fact, some items have more complete data from 

CATI and CAPI than from mailed-back forms. The 

researchers concluded that they needed to conduct 

additional research in order to identify other dimensions that might have an impact on data quality, such 

131 Item nonresponse is one measure of data quality. It occurs 

when a respondent fails to provide complete and usable information 

for required questions, such as when a person accidentally 

overlooks a question, refuses to answer it, or provides an invalid 

answer. Item nonresponse can be measured using item allocation 

rates, which quantify how frequently allocation was the source of 

data in the production of a specific tabulation. The Census Bureau 

handles missing or inconsistent data with imputation. There are 

two primary imputation methods: assignment and allocation. 

Assignment involves looking at other data provided by the 

respondent or other people in the same household to fill in missing 

responses. For example, if information on the respondent’s sex is 

missing but the person reported giving birth to children in the past 

12 months for a subsequent question, the response of “female” 

is assigned to the question of the respondent’s sex. Allocation 

involves supplying missing or inconsistent data from households or 

people in the sample with characteristics similar to the respondent. 

For example, some questions, such as whether a person has served 

in the military, are more accurate when provided from another 

person with similar characteristics. U.S. Census Bureau, American 

Community Survey: Design and Methodology, 2013, p. 133, and 

McGovern and Griffin, “Quality Assessment of Data Collected From 

Non-English Speaking Households in the American Community 

Survey,” p. 3.

Table 9.

Comparison of American Community Survey Demonstration Phase and Full Implementation

Comparison category Demonstration phase 

(2000 to 2004)

Full implementation 

(beginning in 2005)

Areas covered1, 2. . . . . . 

Sample size (number of addresses). . . . . . . . . 

Surveys mailed out monthly. . . . . . . .

Monthly telephone nonresponse 

 follow-up calls. . . . . . . 

Monthly nonresponse follow-up personal visits 

 (number of addresses). . . . . . . 

Field representatives. . . . . . 

1 The demonstration phase included the 1,240 counties in the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey and American Community Survey test sites; 

full Implementation included all 3,141 counties in the states (including the District of Columbia) and all 78 municipios in Puerto Rico. 2 In the demonstration phase, the number of counties increased from 1,239 to 1,240 with the creation of the City and County of Broomfield, 

CO, in 2001 from Adams, Boulder, Jefferson, and Weld Counties. City and County of Broomfield, “Constitutional Amendment,” accessed at 

<www.broomfield.org/index.aspx?NID=1635>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009, p. 2-4.
154 U.S. Census Bureau

as the extent to which linguistically isolated respondents understand the survey questions and the type 

of training provided for conducting interviews with 

non-English-speaking households.132

Subsequent research using the 2003 ACS data analyzed noninterview rates due to language barriers. 

The data showed that at the national and state levels, 

language noninterview rates were very low. In other 

words, language barriers did not lead to incomplete 

interviews. At the county-level, only 6 of the 1,240 

counties in the 2003 ACS had language-related 

noninterview rates greater than 0.4 percent and only 

two of those had language noninterview rates above 

1.0 percent.133 The researchers concluded that due to 

the efforts of bilingual staff the ACS is successful in 

obtaining complete data from respondents, regardless of language spoken.134

Qualitative Quality Assessments

The Census Bureau also conducted cognitive testing 

and focus groups to assess data quality. Using cognitive interviews, researchers tested the functional 

equivalence of Spanish questionnaire translations. 

They sought to determine how respondents interpreted Spanish translations of key questions and 

terms and whether those interpretations were consistent with the English questionnaire. This research 

identified several linguistic and design issues that 

the Census Bureau must take into account when 

132 McGovern and Griffin, “Quality Assessment of Data 

Collected From Non-English Speaking Households in the American 

Community Survey,” pp. 4–6. 133 Danville County, VA, and Jasper County, SC, had noninterview 

rates of 2.7 and 2.4 percent, respectively. Deborah Griffin and Joan 

Broadwater, “American Community Survey Noninterview Rates 

Due to Language Barriers,” presentation at the Meetings of the 

Census Advisory Committee on the African American Population, 

the American Indian and Alaska Native Populations, the Asian 

Population, the Hispanic Population, and the Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander Populations, April 25–27, 2005. 134 Griffin and Broadwater, “American Community Survey 

Noninterview Rates Due to Language Barriers,” p. 2; Pamela D. 

McGovern, “A Quality Assessment of Data Collected in the American 

Community Survey (ACS) From Households With Low English 

Proficiency,” U.S. Census Bureau Survey Methodology Study Series 

#2004-01; and U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: 

American Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009, p. 9–3. 

translating questionnaires, such as terms that have no 

equivalent in another language.135

The researcher noted that the Census Bureau does 

not routinely pretest translated questionnaires 

because of factors such as financial constraints and 

lack of qualified bilingual personnel, noting, 

“Perhaps the greatest challenge to managing bilingual survey instruments is the absence of bilingual 

survey specialists who can review questionnaire 

translations from a survey methodology perspective.”136 However, she concluded, “Without systematic 

testing, there is no empirical basis for evaluating the 

efficacy of a questionnaire translation as a measurement instrument.”137 Thus, she recommended that 

survey specialists routinely test questionnaire translations regardless of the process, techniques, and quality assurance steps that translators may have used to 

produce the final translated questionnaire.

Ongoing Language-Related Research and Activities

The Census Bureau continues to research the quality of data obtained from non-English speakers. For 

example, in early 2002, the Census Bureau conducted approximately 20 focus groups with ACS field 

interviewers to examine the methods they used to 

conduct interviews with persons of limited English 

proficiency. In addition, in 2003, the Census Bureau 

convened a panel of experts from government, academia, and the private sector to address the merits 

and drawbacks of generally accepted translation 

methods. The panel recommended routinely pretesting translated instruments. These research efforts led 

to the development of the Census Bureau’s guidelines 

for translating data collection instruments and supporting materials.138

135 For example, the ACS Spanish language questionnaire uses 

the term “hijos de crianza” to refer to foster children. However, the 

word, crianza, stems from the verb criar meaning “to raise,” so most 

respondents interpreted the term as any child the respondent is 

raising. Those who correctly interpreted the term were familiar with 

the U.S. foster system and used the term “foster” when referring to 

the program, as in “el niño foster” (“foster child”). The researcher 

concluded, “The presence of borrowing in this case suggests trying 

to find a name in Spanish for a U.S. institution such as the foster 

program might create more methodological harm than remedy.” 

Carrasco, “The American Community Survey (ACS) en Español,” p. 

16. 136 Carrasco, “The American Community Survey (ACS) en 

Español,” pp. 1, 19. 137 Carrasco, “The American Community Survey (ACS) en 

Español,” p. 19. 138 Pamela McGovern, Deborah Griffin, and Larry McGinn, 

“Language Action Plan for the American Community Survey,” 

presentation to the Decennial Census Advisory Committee, May 8–9, 

2003, pp. 3–4, and U.S. Census Bureau, Census Bureau Guideline: 

Language Translation of Data Collection Instruments and Supporting 

Materials, April 5, 2004. The guideline pertains to all Census Bureau 

surveys, including the American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 155

American Community Survey staff continue to 

monitor nonresponse due to language barriers. 

Evaluations have shown that the ACS continues to 

have low levels of noninterviews caused by the interviewer’s inability to speak the respondent’s language. 

This is due to the special efforts interviewers use to 

identify and hire interpreters and other means to 

conduct interviews. The Census Bureau has plans for 

future research to develop and test additional language assistance materials for the mail mode.139

OUTREACH, PROMOTION, AND 

UNDERSTANDING ACS DATA

In a hearing on the American Community Survey in 

July 2000, Census Bureau Director Ken Prewitt noted 

the importance of outreach for the ACS program: 

“The Census Bureau will need to establish strong, 

ongoing relationships with a large number of 

key stakeholders. . . . We will want to maintain 

the community partnership program, which has 

proven to be very effective in the early ACS test 

sites—as it has been for Census 2000. More specifically, there can be no successful ACS unless 

local and regional governments are on board. We 

are confident that they will be. And we will want 

a working relationship with the private sector so 

that any number of reciprocal benefits can be 

realized, especially with the survey and data dissemination industries. Finally, the Census Bureau 

will design its advisory committee structure that 

has served it so well in Census 2000 in order to 

draw upon wide-ranging expertise in the conduct 

of the ACS.”140

139 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009, p. 9–3. For example, in a 

continued effort to ensure high-quality data from the increasingly 

multilingual and multiethnic universe of respondents, the ACS 

language team to the initiative to develop translations of ACS 

supporting documents into multiple languages including Spanish, 

Chinese, Korean, Russian, Vietnamese, Arabic, French, Polish, 

Portuguese, and Haitian-Creole. In addition, contractors assisted 

the Census Bureau in conducting cognitive testing of the translated 

materials beginning in 2008. RTI International, Cognitive Testing of 

ACS CAPI Materials in Multiple Languages, contract no. 50-YABC2-66053 TO 11, November 26, 2008; RTI International, Cognitive 

Testing of ACS Supporting Materials in Multiple Languages, 

contract no. YA132309CG0014, July 28, 2010; and RTI International, 

Translation Review and Cognitive Testing of ACS Language 

Assistance Guides in Multiple Languages, final report, March 2012. 140 The Census Bureau’s Proposed American Community Survey 

(ACS), hearing before the Subcommittee on the Census of the 

House Committee on Government Reform, 107th Cong., 1st Sess., 

June 13, 2001, serial no. 107-9, pp. 50 (statement of Linda Gage, 

State of California), 65 (prepared statement of Donald J. Hernandez, 

Population Association of America).

In a subsequent hearing in June 2001, data users 

provided feedback on various aspects of the ACS. In 

addition to concerns about sample size and data precision, data users expressed hope that the ACS would 

provide data that was more current than decennial 

census long-form data. Several speakers urged the 

Census Bureau to continue to seek input from outside 

experts.141

The Census Bureau’s early outreach activities for the 

ACS included data workshops, town hall meetings, 

media contacts, meetings of local and national organizations, and congressional briefings. In addition, 

Census Bureau leaders discussed the importance of 

the ACS at numerous meetings.142 For example: 

• In December 2001, the Census Bureau’s 

Congressional Affairs Office partnered with the 

House Subcommittee on the Census to sponsor 

an informational fair about the ACS. The event 

was attended by more than 60 Congressional 

staff members and four members of Congress. 

The fair featured demonstrations of how the data 

are being used and how Congressional staff could 

access ACS data on the Internet.143

• In the spring of 2003, the Census Bureau held 

the first meeting of the ACS Federal Agency 

Information Program. The purpose of this and 

subsequent meetings was to provide federal 

agencies with a customized approach to getting 

help with the transition from long-form data to 

the ACS.144

141 "The American Community Survey—A Replacement for the 

Census Long Form?" Hearing before the Subcommittee on the 

Census of the House Committee on Government Reform, 106th 

Cong., 2nd Sess., July 20, 2000, serial no. 106-246, p. 35 (prepared 

statement of Kenneth Prewitt). 142 Robert P. Parker, chief statistician, GAO, to Dave Weldon, 

M.D., chairman, and Dan Miller, vice-chairman, House Subcommittee 

on Civil Service, Census, and Agency Organization, Committee 

on Government Reform, re: "The American Community Survey: 

Accuracy and Timeliness Issues," GAO-02-956R, September 30, 

2002, p. 5; William G. Barron, Jr., U.S. Census Bureau, Talking 

Points for ACS Outreach Meeting at the Department of Commerce, 

December 17, 2001. 143 American Community Survey Office, Minutes of the CMO Staff 

Meeting, December 6, 2001; Timothy C. Jones, “The ACS Capital Hill 

Fair,” DSD Newsletter, U.S. Census Bureau, Winter 2001–2002, p. 8. 144 The Census Bureau created a team in response to GAO’s 

recommendation that the Census Bureau needed to be more 

effective in conducting outreach to federal agencies concerning the 

ACS. American Community Survey Office, Minutes of the CMO Staff 

Meeting, April 3, 2003; National Association of State Workforce 

Agencies, “ACS Formally Launched Federal Agency Information 

Program,” July 30, 2003.
156 U.S. Census Bureau

• In mid-2004, the Census Bureau held three 

regional outreach meetings (in Dallas, Texas; 

Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Seattle, Washington) 

that were attended by more than 200 individuals 

representing data users, academicians, the media, 

and local governments.145

Outreach efforts resulted in public endorsements 

from more than 40 public and private organizations, 

including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Rural 

Policy Research Institute, the National Council of 

Black Mayors, and the National Congress of American 

Indians.146 Several organizations passed resolutions, 

wrote letters, or pledged support for the ACS in other 

ways. For example, in 2001, a group of organizations 

prepared a joint letter to Rep. Frank Wolf, chairman 

of the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 

and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies, 

urging Congress to fund the ACS to provide sufficient funding for the survey. Organizations that 

signed the letter included: the American-Arab AntiDiscrimination Committee, American Sociological 

Association, American Statistical Association, 

Association of Public Data Users, Target Corporation, 

Housing Assistance Council, and National Association 

of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials Educational 

Fund.147

Another important component of the Census 

Bureau’s outreach efforts was the solicitation of input 

from data users and external analyses of the ACS 

data. In 2004, the Census Bureau released datasets 

containing data from the 1999–2001 ACS test sites 

145 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, ACS-DM1, April 2009, p. 2-6. 146 Robert R. Weathers II, Cornell University, "A Guide to 

Disability Statistics From the American Community Survey," 

May 2005, p. 15; U.S. Census Bureau, “Notes From the American 

Community Survey – August 2002,” Directions Magazine, 

August 10, 2002, accessed on September 24, 2013, at <www.

directionsmag.com/features/notes-from-the-americancommunity-survey-august-2002/129715>; The National Congress 

of American Indians, Resolution #FTL-04-417, “Support for 

the American Community Survey,” October 2004; and The 

United States Conference of Mayors, resolution no. 56, “Support 

the American Community Survey,” June 2002, accessed on 

September 24, 2013, at <www.usmayors.org/the-conference/

resolutions/?category=c1507&meeting=70th%20Annual%20

Meeting>. 147 American Statistical Association et al., to Hon. Frank Wolf, 

chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, the 

Judiciary, and Related Agencies, re: Sign-on Letter on the American 

Community Survey, November 20, 2001, accessed on September 24, 

2013, at <www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/POL-Sign-onLetter.pdf>.

and the 2000 Census long form. The datasets compared estimates of demographic, social, economic, 

and housing characteristics from the two samples.148

Prior to releasing the data, the Census Bureau contracted with local experts to conduct analyses with 

the data to assess the ability of the ACS to serve as 

a reasonable replacement for census long form data. 

These researchers also provided feedback on various 

aspects of the survey and stressed the importance of 

collaboration with and training for data users as well 

as publicity for the survey (Table 10).149 Similarly, the 

National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Research 

on Future Census Methods noted the need for the 

Census Bureau to inform data users and stakeholders 

about the unique features of the ACS, such as how 

to understand and work with moving average-based 

estimates.150

Further, data users have participated in the design 

of ACS data products. For example, in May 2004, 

the Census Bureau solicited input from the public 

concerning the design of future ACS data products. 

Users provided a variety of comments, prompting 

the Census Bureau’s redesign of its proposed set of 

products. With ongoing public feedback, the Census 

Bureau planned to continue to make improvements to 

its data products as more estimates were available.151

148 The Census Bureau conducted research comparing these 

data down to the tract level and examining various indicators 

of nonsampling error at the tract level. U.S. Census Bureau, 

"Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data Needs—Implementing 

the American Community Survey: Report 7, Comparing Quality 

Measures: The American Community Survey’s Three-Year Averages 

and Census 2000’s Long Form Sample Estimates," June 2004, 

and U.S. Census Bureau, "Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey: Report 

8, Comparison of the American Community Survey Three-Year 

Averages and the Census Sample for a Sample of Counties and 

Tracts," June 2004. 149 Deborah H. Griffin and Preston Jay Waite, “American 

Community Survey Overview and the Role of External Evaluations,” 

Population Research & Policy Review, vol. 25, 2006, p. 221, and 

Robert Scardamalia, “The American Community Survey: General 

Commentary on the Findings From External Evaluations,” 

Population Research & Policy Review, vol. 25, 2006, p. 293. 150 Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and Benjamin F. King, eds., 

"Planning the 2010 Census: Second Interim Report," Washington, 

DC, National Academies Press, 2003, pp. 99–100, and GAO, 

"American Community Survey: Key Unresolved Issues," GAO=05-82, 

October 2004, pp. 21–22. 151 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey Data 

Products,” notice and request for comments, Federal Register, 

vol. 69, no. 94, May 14, 2004, p. 26806; Griffin and Waite, p. 220.
U.S. Census Bureau 157

Table 10.

Data User Recommendations: 2004

Author(s) Location for Which 

Data Analyzed Selected Findings/Recommendations

Gage San Francisco and 

Tulare Counties, CA

• In many cases where statistical tests identified significant differences 

between the ACS and census data, the ACS data generally appeared useful 

and usable.

• Data users should learn to use and provide the standard errors supplied 

with the ACS data and check quality measures.

• Compare ACS and census data to administrative records that you may 

have available.

Hough and Swanson Multnomah County, OR • The quality of the ACS data are as good as, or better than, data from the 

decennial census, with the exception of self-response. However, ACS data 

collection procedures combined with a more permanent, better-trained 

field staff eventually produce samples with less nonresponse than the 

decennial census.

• Knowledge of the local area provides insight into significant statistical 

differences between the ACS and census samples.

• Additional resources will need to be devoted to develop training materials 

that provide guidance to data users.

Salvo, Lobo, and 

Calabrese

Bronx, NY • For most data items, the ACS is a suitable replacement for the census longform sample.

• For four data items with meaningful differences between ACS and census 

estimates, researchers used administrative data to determine that the ACS 

was closer to the administrative data.

• Concluded that users of local area data must work with the Census Bureau 

to determine how best to use ACS data.

Van Auken, Hammer, 

Voss, and Veroff

Vilas and Oneida 

Counties, WI; and 

Flathead and Lake 

Counties, MT

• The ACS has the potential to not only be an adequate replacement for the 

long form, but an improvement.

• With the appropriate levels of funding and publicity, the ACS will match or 

exceed the performance of the long form with regard to data quality.

Sources: Linda Gage, California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, “Comparison of Census 2000 and American Community 

Survey 1999-2001 Estimates: San Francisco and Tulare Counties, California;” George C. Hough, Jr., Portland State University, and David A. 

Swanson, University of Mississippi, “The 1999-2001 American Community Survey and the 2000 Census Data Quality and Data Comparisons: 

Multnomah County, Oregon,” March 9, 2004; Joseph Salvo, Peter Lobo, and Timothy Calabrese, New York City Department of City Planning, 

Population Division, “Small Area Data Quality: A Comparison of Estimates, 2000 Census and the 1999-2001 ACS, Bronx, New York Test Site,” 

March 5, 2004; and Paul M. Van Auken, Roger B. Hammer, Paul R. Voss, and Daniel L. Veroff, University of Wisconsin-Madison, “American 

Community Survey and Census Comparison Final Analytical Report: Vilas and Oneida Counties, Wisconsin; Flathead and Lake Counties, 

Montana,” March 5, 2004. All papers are available at <www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/library.html>, accessed September 24, 2013.
This page is intentionally blank.
U.S. Census Bureau 159

Chapter 5. Nationwide Implementation: 2005–2010

INTRODUCTION

After more than a decade of imagining, planning, 

testing, and evaluating, the Census Bureau mailed 

the first set of American Community Survey (ACS) 

questionnaires during the week of January 10, 2005, 

to the 250,000 addresses selected for the sample.1

Originally planned for full national implementation in 

fiscal year (FY) 2003, the lack of Congressional funding forced the Census Bureau to delay 2 additional 

years. 

For several years, ACS planners had stressed that the 

sooner Congress fully funded the ACS, the sooner 

data users would gain annual access to long-form 

type data for cities and towns with populations of 

65,000 or more. Census Bureau officials also emphasized that it would be necessary to launch the survey 

in FY 2005 to be able to produce tract-level data in 

time for those data to be released in the same time 

frame as the release of 2010 short-form census data.2

Finally, Congress approved sufficient funding for 

the ACS FY 2005 budget. At this time, the House 

Appropriations Committee declared that it “strongly 

support[ed] the Administration’s efforts to collect 

long-form data on an ongoing basis rather than waiting for once-a-decade decennial long-form data.”3

Despite this sign of support, the committee refused 

to fund data collection from group quarters (GQs) 

since “this function may be postponed for an additional year without increasing the risk to the overall 

1

 U.S. Census Bureau, “America’s Changing, and So Is the Census: 

National Mailing of New American Community Survey Marks Historic 

Shift for Census Bureau,” January 10, 2005. 2 Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, “Budget 

Estimates, Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Submission,” pp. 156–157, 

and Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, “Budget 

Estimates, Fiscal Year 2005 Congressional Submission,” p. 192. 3 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 

“Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2005,” Report 

108-576, 108th Congress, 2d Session, p. 68.

planning process.”4 The decision created a challenge 

for ACS statisticians, who had to figure out how to 

compensate for the lack of a year’s worth of data on 

GQs.5

Funding for the ACS the first decade was uneven. It 

rose slowly in the early years, doubling between 2002 

and 2004, increased dramatically in 2005, saw a significant increase in 2006, then grew slowly again for 

the remainder of the decade. The first funding jump 

in 2003 is misleading, as funding simply transitioned 

from the 2000 Census to the ACS program, while the 

significant increase in FY 2005 corresponded with 

nationwide implementation. The increase of FY 2006 

stemmed from the addition of GQs and, to a lesser 

extent, the 2006 ACS Content Test. 

It is important to remember that the ACS was not 

an isolated survey but an integral component of the 

design for the 2010 Census. Preparation for the 2010 

Census was predicated on a tightly integrated program with the fully implemented ACS, which eliminated the need for a long-form questionnaire in the 

2010 Census and allowed census planners and enumerators to focus on short-form data collection and 

ensure a complete and accurate count. Thus, the plan 

for the 2010 Census envisioned that the ACS would 

be fully funded and implemented in time to coordinate the release of population counts from the census 

with the detailed social, economic, and demographic 

data from the ACS. Without the ACS, the Census 

Bureau would have to reconceptualize the entire 2010 

Census.

4 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 

“Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2005,” Report 

108-576, 108th Congress, 2d Session, p. 68. 5 The solution the statisticians proposed turned out not to 

be very complicated after all. They assigned weights to the GQ 

population in a way that allowed 4 years of actual data to represent 

5 years of data.

Table 1.

Congressionally Authorized Obligations for the American Community (ACS) Survey by Year

(In millions of current dollars1)

ACS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Obligation. . .  23.6 29.0 56.8 64.1 144.1 167.8 176.4 187.2 197.0

1 Current dollars is a term describing income in the year in which a person, household, or family receives it. For example, the income someone 

received in 1989 unadjusted for inflation is in current dollars. More information is available at <www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/income/

guidance/current-vs-constant-dollars.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
160 U.S. Census Bureau

In addition to the difficulties over funding, some 

members of Congress expressed concern about the 

intrusiveness of some of the questions on the ACS 

questionnaire. As early as 1996, one congressman 

told his constituents they did not have to cooperate 

with the ACS test then taking place and looked into 

the possibility of making response to the ACS voluntary.6 A congressional inquiry into the advisability of 

making response to the ACS voluntary arose in 2002. 

In March of that year, the House of Representatives 

subcommittee that oversaw the activities of the 

Census Bureau asked about the cost implications of 

changing the ACS from a mandatory to a voluntary 

survey. Six months later, the General Accounting 

Office (GAO) reported that a voluntary survey would 

probably cost between $20 and $35 million more per 

year than the mandatory version due to lower mail 

response rates and higher telephone and personal 

visit follow-up costs.7

Separately from the GAO, and in response to a 

request from the same House oversight subcommittee, the Census Bureau tested the effects of a voluntary ACS on mail response rates and associated 

follow-up costs between March and June of 2003. 

In this test, the mail response rate in the voluntary 

survey declined by over 20 percentage points in 

comparison to mail response in the same months of 

the 2002 ACS test in which response was mandatory. To achieve the same level of data reliability as 

the mandatory survey would require increasing the 

sample size of the voluntary ACS by about 700,000 

addresses annually at an estimated cost of $59.2 

million.8

In addition, with the voluntary survey, a larger 

proportion of the responses would come from 

face-to-face interviews conducted by nonresponse 

follow-up interviewers. The report concluded that, 

“the nonrespondents after mail and telephone 

attempts are subsampled for personal visit follow-up. 

6 Refer to Chapter 3, the section dealing with the transfer of the 

ACS test site from Broward County, Florida, to Brevard County, 

Florida. The congressman was David Weldon (R-FL). 7 The GAO’s report relied on Census Bureau estimates of the 

additional costs involved in shifting from a mandatory to a voluntary 

survey. Robert Parker to Representatives Dave Weldon (R-FL) and 

Dan Miller (R-FL), “The American Community Survey: Accuracy 

and Timeliness Issues,” September 30, 2002, pp. 19–20. Parker 

was the GAO’s chief statistician. The Census Bureau’s estimate of 

the additional cost of conducting the ACS as a voluntary survey 

appeared on page 3 of “Comments on the General Accounting 

Office Draft Report,” attached to Parker’s letter report to Weldon 

and Miller as page 33. 8 U.S. Census Bureau, “Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 3: 

Testing the Use of Voluntary Methods,” December 2003, pp. 5–9, 

16–17.

It is for these very reasons that a large drop in the 

portion of the sample that is interviewed by mail or 

telephone follow-up results in a concurrent drop in 

reliability and an increase in costs.” Therefore, the 

sample would have to greatly increase, at a large 

cost, to maintain the quality of the data.9

Following the GAO and Census Bureau reports on 

the increased cost and reduced reliability that would 

result from making response to the ACS voluntary, 

the impetus behind this effort died down. A GAO 

report from 2004 on “Key Unresolved Issues” in the 

ACS did not single out the voluntary versus mandatory nature of the survey as one of those key issues.10

PREPARATIONS

Outreach to Data User Communities

In order to support federal agencies, which extensively used decennial products, and had special 

requirements for some data, the Census Bureau 

instituted the Federal Agency Information Program 

(FAIP) in the spring of 2003, with the first meeting 

taking place on June 26, 2003. The FAIP sought to 

identify long-form-to-ACS transition issues, provide 

assistance and resources, and find new ways for 

government agencies and all stakeholders to benefit from ACS data.11 The Census Bureau worked with 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

prior to the FAIP in 2003, while the Department 

of Transportation, the U.S. Postal Service, the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the 

Department of Veteran Affairs, the Department of 

Education, and the Department of Labor participated 

in FAIP in 2004. The Department of the Interior, 

9 U.S. Census Bureau, “Meeting 21st Century Demographic Data 

Needs—Implementing the American Community Survey, Report 3: 

Testing the Use of Voluntary Methods,” December 2003, pp. 11–13, 

16–17. 10 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “American Community 

Survey: Key Unresolved Issues,” GAO-05-82, October 2004. 

However, congressional concern about the alleged intrusiveness 

of the questions on the ACS and the mandatory nature of the 

survey did not disappear completely. Five years later, a bill 

making response to the ACS voluntary was introduced in the 

House of Representatives. The bill garnered 35 cosponsors but 

died in committee. Similar bills were introduced in the House of 

Representatives in 2011 (H.R. 931) and 2013 (H.R. 1078) and in the 

Senate in 2012 (S. 3079) and 2013 (S. 530). The 2011 and 2012 bills 

died in committee, but the identically worded H.R. 1078 and 

S. 530 remained active in committee at the time of this writing 

(May 2013). A much more sweeping bill, the “Census Reform Act of 

2013” (H.R. 1638), would eliminate the ACS altogether, plus all other 

Census Bureau surveys, the economic census, and the Census of 

Governments. U.S. Congress, House, “To Make Participation in the 

American Community Survey Voluntary,” HR 3131, 111th Cong., 

1st sess., July 8, 2009. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, May 2006, p. 14–19 to 14–20.
U.S. Census Bureau 161

the Department of Homeland Security and an interagency group measuring English proficiency joined 

the program in 2005. 

In addition to the American Community Survey Office 

(ACSO), several other areas within the Census Bureau 

also focused on outreach to data users.12 The staff of 

the assistant director for the Customer Liaison and 

Marketing Services Office (CLMSO)13 offered standard and specialized training for the wide variety of 

audiences, including workshops, brochures and flyers, electronic communications, exhibit booths, and 

query responses. It also helped coordinate with State 

Data Centers, Census Information Centers, and the 

Federal-State Cooperative Program for Population 

Estimates as key communicators to support the ACS. 

The Public Information Office (PIO) coordinated 

media outreach activities, organized and conducted 

news conferences and special appearances, and 

developed targeted material, like drop-in articles, for 

the news media.14 PIO also developed webinars to 

train journalists on how to access and use ACS data. 

The Field Division’s Partnership and Data Services 

staff and Information Services staff conducted 

workshops, attended meetings, and developed and 

distributed ACS support materials15 such as the 2005 

guidebook Using Data From the 2005 American 

Community Survey, the online “Guide to the ACS Data 

Products,” and the ACS Data User Training guide 

presentations. 

In addition to training and conferences, the Census 

Bureau developed several tools to reach data users.16

The ACS Alert, a periodic newsletter disseminated 

through email to some 5,000 stakeholders, provided 

updated information on ACS products, research, and 

activities. In 2008, a Census Bureau study found that 

12 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 

Communications Plan, February 2005. 13 At this time the office was known as the Marketing, Services 

and Customer Liaison Offices. 14 The Census Advisory Committee of Professional Associations 

and the American Marketing Association helped develop a media 

outreach plan specifically for the ACS, and the changing nature 

of media markets with increased reliance on the internet, in 2006. 

Kenneth C. Meyer, “Outreach to Reporters and Journalists: What Do 

They Need?” October 27, 2006. 15 Design and Methodology, 2006, pp. 14–18. 16 A typical example of the type of workshop and training 

conducted by the Census Bureau is the Population Association of 

America’s April 2009 training session, which included presentations 

on ACS fundamentals, dealing with low reliability estimates, 

choosing which multiyear estimates to use, comparisons in MYEs, 

introduction to ACS PUMS files, and demographic research 

using ACS data. Another typical example of outreach involved 

publishing within the journals of organizations like the PAA, and 

The Population Reference Bureau (2005, vol 60., no. 3) reviewed 

by personnel in the ACSO (Cindy Taeuber, Terri Ann Lowenthal, Ken 

Bryson, David Swanson).

51.5 percent of email addresses were undeliverable, 

pointing to the need for continuous maintenance, 

and the ACS Alert was eventually discontinued.17

ACS program communications staff also created 

Congressional Tool Kits in 2004 in conjunction with 

the Congressional Affairs Office, and distributed 

them to every member of Congress. The toolkits 

contained binders with ACS data specific to each 

member’s district or state, a description of ACS 

operations, justification for each question, and other 

pertinent information. Another product, the ACS 

Handbook series, started in 2004 with an issue targeted towards state and local policymakers, while 

later issues addressed specific data user groups, such 

as lawmakers, businesses, the media, and specific 

populations such as American Indians and Alaska 

Natives, with how ACS data could be used by them 

specifically. These handbooks evolved into the ACS 

Compass Series brand in 2008.18 In subsequent years, 

products have been updated to reflect changing 

needs, updated tables, and multiyear estimates. 

17 Lynn Weidmann and Kathleen T. Ashenfelter, Project Report: 

“Investigation of User Preferences for Measures of Sampling Error 

to be Displayed on American Community Survey Data Products and 

Modification of Definitions of these Measures,” U.S. Census Bureau, 

Statistics Research Division, September 3, 2009. 18 Available at <www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

guidance/handbooks.html>.
162 U.S. Census Bureau

Data User Input

In 2007, the Committee on National Statistics 

(CNSTAT) issued a report, “Using the American 

Community Survey: Benefits and Challenges” based 

on several conferences and discussions held since 

2005. Statisticians, academics, and local planners 

compiled the final report, which reflected the impact 

of the ACS on a wide variety of stakeholders and data 

users. Some of the benefits identified in the report 

included timeliness of data, frequency of updating, 

improved data quality, and continued consistency 

with the long form for most items. The panel also 

made several recommendations for improvements, 

including refining sampling, collection, currency and 

accuracy, updating the Master Address File (MAF), 

and securing funding.19

In late 2008 and early 2009, ACS program and 

CLSMO, in conjunction with regional offices and 

the State Data Center Network, conducted seven 

outreach sessions with data users across the country at the behest of Census Bureau Director Steven 

Murdock. Sessions uncovered data users’ unfamiliarity with ACS data products and their unpreparedness to transition from long-form data. Attendees 

19 Recommendations for improving sampling and data collection 

included an accurate and updated MAF, increasing the sample 

size and improving accuracy in small areas, researching and 

refining data collection methods (CATI, CAPI, mail), researching 

and refining the residency rule compared to the decennial census, 

increased attention to group quarters collection, concerns over the 

importance of data versus confidentiality protections, changing 

cell-collapsing rules for tables, the effects of inflation adjustment on 

multiyear estimates (MYEs), and increasing timeliness and quality 

of data product reviews. Recommendations for improving MYE 

weighting included researching ways to deliver higher quality 1-year 

estimates, comparing post-census housing unit estimates with 

the MAF and improving both, improving population controls, and 

finding a better way to discern change between overlapping 3- and 

5-year estimates. Other recommendations included more consistent 

ACS-specific funding, better outreach and a dedicated data user 

support staff, increasing understanding of quality measures, better 

explanation of sampling error, creating a comprehensive quality 

profile, more experimental methods panel testing, and more 

overall experimental improvement and testing. Constance F. Citro 

and Graham Kalton, eds, Using the American Community Survey: 

Benefits and Challenges, The National Academies Press, 2007.

overwhelmingly approved of the timeliness of ACS 

data, but needed education in understanding how 

ACS data interacted with other census data products 

and residency rules. Data users expressed concerns 

with sample size and increased error, as well as 

places with fluctuating seasonal or incident-related 

populations.

SAMPLING FRAME AND SAMPLE SELECTION

Master Address File (MAF) and the Community 

Address Update Survey (CAUS)

The 2005 ACS sampling frame was comprised of 

extracts from the Census Bureau’s MAF, which contained both housing units and group quarters.20 In 

addition to the ACS, the Census Bureau uses the MAF 

for several surveys, including the decennial census and continuously updates it through processes 

such as the Delivery Sequence File (DSF) collaboration with the U.S. Postal Service, regional MAFGOR 

(Master Address File Geocoding Office Resolution) 

clerical work, and Demographic Area Address Listing 

(DAAL) operations. Field representatives also update 

the MAF during nonresponse follow-up operations for 

the ACS.

However, of the approximately 8.2 million blocks 

nationwide, there were more than 750,000 blocks 

where DSF updates were not able to provide adequate coverage, particularly in predominantly rural 

areas with nonconventional addresses such as Alaska 

and rural Maine. In order to address this shortfall, the 

Census Bureau designed the CAUS specifically for the 

ACS. Implemented in September 2003, CAUS was an 

automated field data collection operation that provided a rural counterpart to the update of city-style 

addresses received from the DSF. It focused on census blocks with high concentrations of non-city-style 

20 For more on the formation and updating of the MAF, refer to 

Chapter 4 of this study, or Chapter 8 of the 2010 History.

Table 2.

Sample Frame and Actual Interviews for the American Community Survey by Year

Year

Housing units Group quarters

Initial addresses selected Final interviews Initial sample selected Final actual interviews

2010. . . . . . . .  2,899,676 1,917,799

2009. . . . . . . .  2,897,256 1,917,748

2008. . . . . . . .  2,894,711 1,931,955

2007. . . . . . . .  2,886,453 1,937,659

2006. . . . . . . .  2,885,384 1,968,362

2005. . . . . . . .  2,922,6

X Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Census Bureau 163

addresses and suspected growth and used a model-based method to glean information from previous field data collection efforts and administrative 

records. The model indicated where CAUS work was 

needed and selected blocks for additional listing 

operations. Out of the 8.2 million blocks nationwide, 

750,000 where identified for CAUS, and traveled by 

field representatives based on the model rank and 

whether it was operationally and financially feasible.21

CAUS improved coverage of the ACS in several ways. 

It added addresses that existed, but did not appear, 

in the DSF and non-city-style addresses in the DSF 

that did not appear on the MAF. Additionally, CAUS 

added addresses in the DSF that also appeared in the 

MAF but were erroneously excluded from the ACS 

frame as well as deleted addresses that appeared in 

the MAF but were erroneously included in the ACS 

frame. The Census Bureau suspended the CAUS program from October 2007 to March 2010 for the 2010 

Census Address Canvassing and field follow-up activities, which would have essentially required the same 

work to be completed twice.22 The ACS program, 

which transferred labor from CAUS to the 2010 MAF 

update, then received addresses from the updated 

2010 MAF for the May 2010 ACS sampling frames.23

Housing Units

The 2005 sample consisted of two parts, referred to 

as the main and supplemental samples. In August and 

September 2004, the ACS program extracted the 

main sample from the MAF. The sample of approximately 3 million housing units selected during main 

phase sampling comprised the majority of the total 

ACS sample, and the number of addresses selected 

were evenly allocated to each of the 12 monthly panels for the sample year. At the same time, the ACS 

program selected a sample of approximately 36,000 

housing units for the Puerto Rico Community Survey 

(PRCS), the name used for the ACS in Puerto Rico. 

Then in January and February 2005, a further sample 

of new addresses, proportional to the desired sampling rate, that had been added to the MAF since the 

September sample was selected for the supplemental 

21 Results from a 2005 study indicated this method was more 

effective than a random sampling, and that subsequent DAAL work 

was conducted based on budget and operational considerations. 

Design and Methodology, May 2006, p. 3-5. 22 U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American 

Community Survey, April 2009, p. 3-4, and June 2013, p. 3-4. 23 Griffin, Deborah, “Comparing 2010 American Community 

Survey 1-Year Estimates of Occupancy Status, Vacancy Status, 

and Household Size With the 2010 Census - Preliminary Results,” 

December 20, 2011, p. 8.

phase.24 The addresses from the supplemental phase 

were allocated to the last nine monthly panels of the 

year (April through December). Each sample was 

further divided into five sampling rate categories to 

ensure diverse populations and geographies received 

equally reliable estimates. This meant smaller populations received higher sampling rates than larger 

populations.25

The sample selections for both the main and supplemental samples each had two stages. The first 

divided the entire MAF into five equal parts, with 

each part assigned to a year, so that no household 

would receive the ACS more than once every 5 years. 

The second stage calculated the sample sizes needed 

to provide equal reliability of final data for all population sizes. The initial sample for both main and 

supplemental samples was then created by pulling 

the required ratio of sample size for each population 

size from the 20 percent of the total MAF assigned 

to that year.26 This phase also created a subsample 

for geographic areas that had traditionally lower 

response rates. The subsample underwent the final 

interview and steps in nonresponse follow-up, known 

as the computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI), 

and an increased subsample was generated.27

24 To account for completeness, filtering rules are applied and 

occasionally altered, such as including units under construction, 

and units that are not geocoded. U.S. Census Bureau, Design and 

Methodology: American Community Survey, April 2009, p 3–7. 25 Design and Methodology, May 2006, p. 4-2. 26 The first phase consisted of splitting the entire main or 

supplemental frame into five subframes, each one including 

approximately 20 percent of the addresses from the frame. 

Addresses in the five sampling rate categories were distributed 

evenly in these subsamples, which ensured individual estimate 

variances did not differ too much year to year. One of these 20 

percent samples was selected for 2005, and the others were 

assigned to the years 2006–2009, with the 2005 subsample being 

assigned for resurveying in 2010. This means each address was only 

eligible to be selected in sample for the ACS once every 5 years, 

minimizing respondent burden. In 2006, only the addresses new to 

the MAF since the previous years’ supplemental sample are used in 

the first phase for the main sample, while the supplemental sample 

was replaced with the additions to the MAF since the new main 

sample had been divided. Establishing the sampling rate categories 

for the second phase of sample selection involved calculating the 

potential samples needed to provide equal reliability for all sizes 

of population, and then refining those initial overall sample rates. 

Final overall sampling rates further refined the initial overall sample 

rates by predicted response rate prior to CAPI. If the tract had not 

previously been counted in previous ACS tests, ACS staff created 

projections based on information from the 2000 Census. These 

projections showed the response rate required for equal reliability 

for different population sizes for both 60 percent and 75 percent 

response rates. The second phase of sample selection finished when 

the first phase 20 percent subphase sample assigned to 2005 was 

mined using the required sampling rates. Design and Methodology: 

American Community Survey, 2006, pp. 4-1 to 4-7. 27 CAPI is discussed in greater detail in the Modifications section 

of this chapter.
164 U.S. Census Bureau

Group Quarters

In 2005, the ACS program selected the first full-scale 

sample of GQ facilities and people independently 

within each state, as well as the District of Colombia 

and Puerto Rico, for use in 2006. Approximately 

2.5 percent of the expected number of residents in 

GQ facilities were included in both the ACS and the 

Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS).28 Unlike the 

housing units (HUs), there was only a main sample 

and no supplemental sample, as any new group 

homes would not appear in the MAF updates. Due to 

safety concerns and operational feasibility, certain 

GQs included in the 2000 Census were not used in 

ACS operations. These included domestic violence 

shelters, soup kitchens, mobile food vans, targeted 

nonshelter outdoor locations, commercial maritime 

vessel crews, natural disaster shelters, and makeshift 

encampments. 

Small GQs (under 15 people), and those closed on 

Census Day (e.g., seasonal shelters) made up one 

sampling strata, while large GQs (over 15 people) 

comprised the other. The small GQ sample followed 

a similar stage structure as the HU sample, and was 

divided into five frames of 20 percent each, with each 

frame assigned to a year from 2006 to 2010. The 

second stage reduced the 20 percent GQ samples 

further to a 1 in 8 sample in order to achieve the target sampling rate of 2.5 percent. Wherever GQs were 

found in this strata with populations that exceeded 

15 people, that location was further subsampled 

to a count of 10 people in order to create manageable workloads for field representatives (FR). FRs 

obtained information from the administrative contact 

for the GQs, and used that information to select the 

final sample of persons at the facility. The FRs collected individual’s information using paper questionnaires, in addition to a card booklet comprising of six 

cards with the GQ questions and frequently asked 

questions and other important facts.29

Large GQ samples were similarly divided into two 

phases and focused on groups of 10 people within 

each larger facility, however they could also be enumerated year after year, as they were not assigned to 

28 The full GQ population is approximately 8 million, with 25 

percent in college level student housing, 23 percent in nursing 

facilities, and 19 percent in correctional facilities. Paul R. Voss, Panel 

on Statistical Methods for Measuring the Group Quarters Population 

in the ACS, APDU 2010 Annual Conference, September 21, 2010. 29 Design and Methodology, 2006, p. C-33.

20 percent groups.30 In the first phase, the samples 

were sorted by GQ type and geographical order and 

a systematical sample of 1 in 40 groups was selected.31 A field representative then visited the GQ, often 

after preliminary collaboration with those running or 

supervising the facility, and used an automated listing 

instrument to select the 10 people, or more depending on the size of the facility, to be interviewed. In 

facilities where field representatives interviewed 

multiple groups, the groups received assignments 

to different sample months whenever possible. One 

exception was federal correctional facilities, which 

were all assigned to September.32

One initial issue with the GQ sampling frame, as well 

as the weighting design, was that it was formatted for 

state-level statistics, while GQ data also needed to 

work with substate estimates for the total population. 

This resulted in an increased variance for substate 

estimates, particularly at the 1-year estimates level. 

The fact that GQs often concentrated people with 

similar demographic qualities (e.g., college campuses) skewed these substate estimates. Additionally, 

the ACS GQ sampling frame only received occasional 

updates due to the fact that it was created from the 

2000 Census Special Place/GQ files, which was then 

merged with the MAF, as opposed to MAF update 

operations which focused on updating HUs.33

Data Collection and Processing

The basic data collection methodology remained a 

three-stage process, as had been envisioned since the 

early days of continuous measurement. For mailable 

cases, stage one consisted of a series of mail contacts 

with each housing unit in the sample. Included in the 

30 A GQ with 350 people would have 35 groups. Based on 

the first phase of large GQ measurement, this means that with 

a 1 in 40 sample rate, this large facility may not be represented 

at all, whereas facilities with between 400 and 800 people (40 

to 80 groups) will have at least one group selected. Design and 

Methodology, 2006, p. 4-10. 31 In 2008 the GQ sampling stratum increased to more than 1 in 

40 for some states. 32 Design and Methodology, 2006, p. 4–10. 33 Beaghen, Michael and Sharon Stern, Usability of the 

ACS Estimates of the Group Quarters Population for Substate 

Geographies, Section on Survey Research Methods—JSM 2009, 

2009. Lessons learned during the first years of GQ testing 

included how to overcome gatekeepers and setbacks, to use 

agreements tailored to different facility types, and that outreach 

materials increased respondent’s understanding of ACS needs 

and requirements. Another major investment that paid off was the 

automated resident improvement instrument. Susan Schechter, 

“Overview of the American Community Survey and the Group 

Quarters Operation,” presentation, March 29, 2010. With the 2010 

Census, the GQ address list was once again completely updated due 

to decennial operations. 2012 ACS Research and Evaluation Report 

Memorandum Series #ACS12-RER-17, “ACS/Census Group Quarters 

Match,” March 28, 2012.
U.S. Census Bureau 165

series were a notification letter, the ACS questionnaire, a reminder card, and a second questionnaire, 

as needed. For cases of nonresponse, the household received a phone call from one of the Census 

Bureau’s three call centers, which would then conduct 

a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI). A 

subsample of the remaining nonresponding housing 

unit addresses were selected for a computer-assisted 

personal interview (CAPI) from an ACS interviewer. 

Unmailable addresses were sampled at a rate of 

2-in-3 and sent to CAPI along with the remaining 

nonresponding housing unit addresses.

There was a significant change in the design of the 

personal visit follow-up stage of the process, which 

involved a shift from visiting a random subsample 

of one-third of the nonresponding housing units for 

all areas to a more complex approach.34 Both ACS 

statisticians and outside scholars recognized that 

areas with low mail and telephone response rates 

would have a larger percentage of cases requiring 

personal visits, and that this would result in larger 

variance estimates for these areas. In an attempt to 

resolve this issue, the ACS staff investigated methods 

of oversampling low response rate areas to improve 

the comparability of sample variances across areas.35

The revised design for mailable addresses used sampling rates of 1-in-2, 2-in-5, or 1-in-3 depending on the 

historical completion rate of interviews at the census-tract level.36

The ACS personnel had also made a number of 

relatively minor changes to survey data collection and 

processing operations since the early testing days. 

But the first major upgrade was the introduction 

of the Integrated Computer-Assisted Data Entry 

(iCADE) data capture system in 2007 to replace 

the original data capture system which was a keyfrom-paper (KFP) system in which clerks entered 

34 Actually two subsamples comprised the early version of 

this follow-up operation. The first was a two-thirds subsample of 

addresses that were ineligible for both mailout and CATI, usually 

because the addresses were incomplete. The other subsample was 

the roughly one-third of housing units that had failed to respond 

to either the mailout of the ACS questionnaire or to the attempted 

CATI interview. Refer to U.S. Census Bureau, “Meeting 21st Century 

Demographic Data Needs—Implementing the American Community 

Survey: July 2001; Report 1, Demonstrating Operational Feasibility,” 

p. 22. 35 Refer to, for example, Anthony Tersine and Mark Asiala, 

“Alternative Oversampling Options for Low Mail Response Areas in the 

American Community Survey,” paper presented at the Joint Statistical 

Meetings, August 2002, p. 1, and Daniel L. Cork, Michael L. Cohen, and 

Benjamin F. King (eds.), Reengineering the 2010 Census: Risks and 

Challenges, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 2004, p. 

107.36 U.S. Census Bureau, “Accuracy of the Data (2006),” 2007, 

pp. 5–6.

respondent information from paper questionnaires. 

iCADE was a key-from-image (KFI) system in which 

clerical staff keyed respondent data from scanned 

images of the questionnaire. The ACS staff adopted 

iCADE for two reasons:

• The KFP system was becoming obsolete and could 

not be fully supported.

• ACS clerical staff found that it could not keep up 

with the volume of work required by the KFP system, which resulted in significant backlogs in the 

questionnaire keying process.

In addition to the improvements noted above, iCADE 

was expected to reduce data capture expenses 

through the reduction in tracking, handling, and keying respondent questionnaires on a daily basis.37

Unfortunately, after the Census 2000 Supplementary 

Survey (C2SS)38 was well underway, ACS researchers 

became aware of “an issue of considerable concern 

about the ACS estimates” that would take some time 

to resolve.39 These ACS research staff members were 

referring to the disturbing fact that “some significant 

data inconsistencies” characterized ACS data prior to 

2006.40 The most significant inconsistency was the 

difference between the estimated number of households and the estimated number of householders for 

the same geographic areas. Researchers expected to 

find a one-to-one relationship, with each household 

having one householder (also known as Person 1, that 

is the first respondent on the ACS questionnaire). 

In 2005 the ACS estimate for the number of householders in the United States was 114.8 million, but the 

37 Stephanie Baumgardner, “An Evaluation of the Transition to 

the iCADE Data Capture System—Overview Report,” 2012 American 

Community Survey Research and Evaluation Report Memorandum 

Series ACS12-RER-25, July 31, 2012, available at <www.census.gov/

content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2012/acs/2012_

Baumgardner_01.pdf>, accessed on January 22, 2013, and Stephanie 

Studds, “iCADE, the Data Capture System of the U.S. Census 

Bureau,” in Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium 2008: 

Data Collection: Challenges, Achievements and New Directions, 

2009, available at <www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-522-x/2008000/

article/10969-eng.pdf>, accessed on January 22, 2013. 38 Refer to “Chapter 4, Research, Evaluation, and Outreach 

(2001-2006),” for a description of the Census 2000 Supplementary 

Survey and its pivotal role in persuading skeptics of the feasibility 

of replacing the census long form with the ACS as a source for 

accurate, reliable data on the characteristics of the U.S. population. 39 Keith A. Albright, Alfredo Navarro, and Mark Asiala, “An 

Alternative to the Principal Person Method for Weighting in the 

American Community Survey,” paper presented at the 2004 annual 

meeting of the American Statistical Association, in Toronto, Canada, 

p. 3241. Accessed at <www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2004/files/

Jsm2004-000411.pdf> on January 22, 2013. 40 Mark E. Asiala, “Weighting and Estimation Research 

Methodology and Results From the American Community Survey 

Family Equalization Project,” in Proceedings of the 2007 Federal 

Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference, p. 

1, accessed at <https://nces.ed.gov/fcsm/pdf/2007fcsm_AsialaIV-C.pdf> on January 22, 2013.
166 U.S. Census Bureau

estimated number of households in the United States 

was only 111 million. A similar one-to-one relationship 

should have existed between the number of spouses 

in households and the number of married-couple 

households. However, the 2005 ACS estimated 

that there were 57.1 million spouses and 55.2 million married-couple households. These variations 

did not appear in the unweighted data, leading ACS 

researchers to conclude that their weighting methodology must have been responsible for the observed 

differences in the estimates.41

The ACS staff tried several approaches to remedy 

this situation. The ACS used two weights to estimate 

the characteristics of housing units and their occupants. The housing-unit weight was used for estimating housing, household, and family characteristics, 

while the person weight was used for estimating 

person characteristics including householder characteristics. Prior to 2006, while the calculation of the 

housing unit weights made use of the person weights, 

there was little effort made to ensure consistency 

between them. This led to the inconsistencies noted 

above. In 2002, a working group created to resolve 

this issue recommended using the person weight of 

the householder to tabulate estimates for households 

instead of using the housing-unit weight. This modification produced consistency between estimates 

of householders and households but in the process, 

introduced new problems by creating an inequality 

between the estimated number of households and 

occupied housing units. By definition, the number 

of households and the number of occupied housing 

units should have been the same, but this was not the 

case. After further consideration, the ACS temporarily 

abandoned attempts to resolve the inconsistencies in 

the estimates and returned to using the housing-unit 

weight to estimate the number of households.42

With data inconsistencies remaining, ACS staff 

made a second attempt to resolve the issue by 

adapting the weighting methodology employed in 

the New York City Housing Vacancy Survey. This 

methodology required the final person weight of the 

householder and the spouse to equal the housingunit weight. In the New York City survey, the person 

post-stratification adjustment to the independent 

41 Mark E. Asiala, “Evaluating Use of Family Equalization for 

American Community Survey Weighting Methodology,” 2011 

American Community Survey Research and Evaluation Report, 

ACS11-RER-06, September 11, 2011, available at <www.census.gov/

content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2011/acs/2011_

Asiala_01.pdf>, accessed January 24, 2013. 42 Asiala, “Weighting and Estimation Research,” p. 2.

population controls was defined in such a way that 

the adjustment factor of the householder and spouse 

were set to “1.” The remaining sample population 

had to account for all the difference between the 

precontrolled estimates and the population controls.

This approach resulted in data consistencies at one 

level but it increased variances in a number of estimates. In some cases, it also produced negative 

weights that could be handled only by the increased 

collapsing of post-stratification cells, which, in turn, 

led to greater bias in the estimates as the controls 

were applied to broader cells. In the end, ACS staff 

felt that the New York City Housing Vacancy Survey 

worked because its primary focus was on housing 

unit characteristics while the ACS produced estimates 

pertaining to both housing units and the people living 

in them. As a result, the methodology that worked in 

one New York City survey focused on housing units 

was not appropriate for a national survey dealing with 

a broader range of data.43

ACS weighting experts tried again later in the 

decade. They modified their goal from obtaining 

numerical equality between variables that should 

have equal values to reducing the extent of the 

inconsistencies at the weighting-level area, which for 

the ACS was either a county or a group of counties. 

In 2007, ACS researchers modified the weighting 

methodology in another attempt to reduce these 

differences. They replaced a single-step process 

which produced person weights in 2005 and earlier 

data with a multistage, “three-dimensional” process 

that involved changes to person weighting, housing-unit weighting, and the estimation procedure. 

The modified process was referred to as “family 

equalization.”44

These modifications resulted in dramatic reductions 

in the difference between the estimated number of 

spouses and the estimated number of married couple households. The anomalies associated with the 

earlier weighting methodology notably decreased. 

These reductions occurred in the single year data 

for 2006 and 2007, as well as in the 3-year data for 

2005–2007. In addition, the decreases were present 

at all geographic levels, not just at the weighting 

area (county or groups of counties) level, suggesting that the beneficial effects of the new weighting 

procedure filtered down to lower levels of geography. 

43 Asiala, “Weighting and Estimation Research,” p. 2.

44 Asiala, “Weighting and Estimation Research,” pp. 3–8, and 

Asiala, “Evaluating Use of Family Equalization.”
U.S. Census Bureau 167

Researchers found a similar reduction in the differences between the estimated number of unmarried 

partners and the estimated number of unmarried 

partner households.45

In 2009, a new research effort began to address data 

user concern regarding ACS population estimates for 

subcounty areas. The primary source of this concern was the difference between ACS population 

estimates and the population estimates from the 

Population Estimates Program (PEP) for incorporated 

places and minor civil divisions (MCD). Significant 

changes to the weighting methodology improved 

estimates of subcounty areas, starting with ACS data 

products including the year 2009. The ACS estimates 

of the total population of incorporated places and 

MCDs included adjustments so that they were closer 

to PEP estimates. The new subcounty controls were 

in addition to the county-level controls of population 

by demographic group that had always been a part 

of ACS methodology. 

Some consequences of implementing subcounty 

controls are that the 2009 ACS, 1-year estimates of 

totals and characteristics of population and housing 

units for subcounty areas are not directly comparable 

to estimates from the 2008 ACS or from earlier ACS 

releases. Similarly, the 2007–2009 ACS, 3-year estimates of totals and characteristics of population and 

housing units for subcounty areas are not directly 

comparable to those from either the 2006–2008 

ACS or the 2005–2007 ACS. Observed differences 

between the ACS data products which include the 

year 2009 and earlier ACS estimates may reflect 

this change in methodology and may not reflect real 

changes in the population. In addition to changes 

seen at the subcounty level, some counties will show 

modestly different year-to-year distributions of 

nondemographic characteristics. Further, it must be 

noted that a small number of incorporated places and 

MCDs may have large differences in total population 

between the PEP and ACS despite the subcounty 

controls.46

When the Unexpected Happens—the 2005 Gulf 

Coast Hurricanes

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina, carrying 

winds in excess of 140 miles per hour, smashed 

45 Asiala, “Evaluating Use of Family Equalization.”

46 Keith A. Albright, “Using Subcounty Estimates as Controls in 

Weighting for the American Community Survey,” available at <www.

census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/acs/tech-doc/

ResearchNoteSubcountyControls.pdf>.

ashore in the New Orleans and Mississippi Gulf Coast 

areas, causing massive devastation and flooding.47

Less than 1 month later, Hurricane Rita made landfall 

near the Texas-Louisiana border. Although much less 

destructive than Katrina, Rita also left a trail of wreckage in the Texas/Louisiana border region.48

Together, the two storms destroyed thousands of 

buildings between Mobile, Alabama, and the Texas/

Louisiana border and were responsible for large-scale 

population displacement from the cities and towns 

along their paths. The fledgling ACS provided the 

Census Bureau with an opportunity to estimate the 

effects the hurricanes had on the populations and 

the housing stock of the affected area. While the ACS 

was intended as a survey that would produce data on 

an annual or multiyear basis, one of the early considerations was releasing data on a subannual basis 

(Chapter 2). The Census Bureau agreed to prepare 

two subannual Gulf Coast Area Special Products, one 

covering the first 8 months of 2005 (January through 

August) and the other comprising the last 4 months 

of 2005. The geographic area to be included in these 

reports consisted of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Texas.49 In the aftermath of the hurricanes, the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

designated 117 counties in these states as “disaster 

counties,” which meant that they were eligible to 

receive federal disaster assistance (i.e., “Individual 

and Public Assistance” or IPA). In order to differentiate the population of disaster areas from the rest of 

the state’s population, the Census Bureau subdivided 

each state into “FEMA-designated IPA counties” and 

the balance of the state.50

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused several temporary modifications in the normal ACS data collection 

procedures. The ACS planning for operation during 

natural disasters initially required that ACS field representatives “apply their discretion for entering areas 

where they do not feel safe and to avoid getting in 

47 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Climatic Data Center, “Hurricane Katrina: A Climatological 

Perspective,” Technical Report 2005-01, pp. 1–3. 48 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Climatic Data Center, “Hurricane Rita.” 49 Kin Koerber, “Migration Patterns and Mover Characteristics 

From the 2005 ACS Gulf Coast Area Special Products,” unpublished 

paper presented at the Southern Demographic Association 

Conference, Durham, NC, November 2–4, 2006, p. 2. 50 U.S. Census Bureau, “2005 ACS Special Product for the Gulf 

Coast Area; Quality Measures,” June 5, 2006, p. 1, accessed at 

<https://www2.census.gov/acs/2005_Gulf_Coast_Area_Data_

Profiles/Quality%20Measure%206-5%2010AM.doc> on November 27, 

2012.
168 U.S. Census Bureau

the way of relief efforts.”51 In September 2005, the 

ACS did not mail replacement questionnaire packages to sample members living in the most heavily 

impacted areas, and in October, mailing pieces were 

delayed or not sent at all. The staff resumed the 

standard mailing procedure in November. In the same 

vein, ACS staff postponed CATI or did not call at all. 

Normal CATI operations began in late October. For 

the most part, ACS managers cancelled the last stage 

of data collection, CAPI for September. Interviewing 

resumed in October and November as areas became 

more accessible.52

Limitations of the Data—2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes

The uniqueness of the situation led to the implementation of several procedures and produced data 

comparable to previously released ACS data products. The January–August and September–December 

period estimates were annualized so they would 

represent 12-month (i.e., annual) time periods.53

The Census Bureau stressed that these were not 

official estimates of the population size in a particular 

geographic area but were estimates of the characteristics of the population and the housing units in which 

they lived. The Census Bureau stated that under normal circumstances, ACS estimates would be adjusted 

(“controlled”) to reflect the independent population 

and housing-unit estimates produced by the Census 

Bureau’s population estimates program. Population 

and housing unit estimates were constructed on an 

annual basis and should not be applied to subannual 

data.54 Splitting the annual sample into two parts (the 

January–August and September–December periods) 

reduced each part of the sample size. As a result, 

51 U.S. Census Bureau, “Minutes of the ACSO Staff Meeting,” 

September 12, 2005, p. 1. 52 U.S. Census Bureau, “2005 ACS Special Product for the Gulf 

Coast Area: Accuracy of the Data,” May 30, 2006, pp. 2–3, accessed 

at <https://www2.census.gov/acs/2005_Gulf_Coast_Area_Data_

Profiles/GulfCoastMethodology.pdf> on November 20, 2012. 53 The January–August period covered two-thirds of the year, 

while the September–December period covered one-third of the 

year. Annualizing the data involved multiplying the weights of the 

period estimates by the reciprocal of the period’s fraction of the 

year. The January–August period included 8 months or two-thirds 

of the year, so the weights of the estimates for this period were 

multiplied by the reciprocal of two-thirds, which was three-halves 

or 1.5. The September–December period was 4 months or one-third 

of the year, and the weights of the estimates for this period were 

multiplied by the reciprocal of one-third, or 3. 54 U.S. Census Bureau, “2005 American Community Survey 

Special Product for the Gulf Coast Area: Questions and Answers,” 

May 31, 2006, p. 1, accessed at <https://www2.census.gov/

acs/2005_Gulf_Coast_Area_Data_Profiles/GulfCoastQandA.

pdf> on November 20, 2012. U.S. Census Bureau, “User Notes on 

Statistical Significance: 2005 ACS Special Product for the Gulf 

Coast Area,” accessed at <https://www2.census.gov/acs/2005_

Gulf_Coast_Area_Data_Profiles/GulfCoastUserNotes.pdf> on 

November 20, 2012.

the sampling error for estimates calculated for each 

period was generally larger than the sampling error 

for corresponding estimates in the full-year 2005 

ACS estimates.55

In addition to publishing such quality measures as 

sample size, survey response rates and item allocations rates for both sets of period estimates, the ACS 

staff developed a new quality measure called the 

“out-of-scope rate.” Out-of-scope addresses included 

those in buildings that had been demolished, condemned, or were otherwise unfit for human habitation, nonexistent addresses, commercial addresses, 

and group quarters. Out-of-scope addresses were 

deleted from the ACS estimation process. 

The ACS analysts expected that the September–

December 2005 out-of-scope rates for areas damaged by at least one of the hurricanes would be 

higher than the January–August 2005 rates. Table 3 

shows that this expectation was correct, particularly 

for Louisiana.56

What the Data Revealed—2005 Gulf Coast 

Hurricanes

While the Census Bureau indicated that agencies 

should use the ACS mainly for demographic characteristics, its population estimates program produced 

special estimates of the household population in a 

number of the areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita. Table 4 shows that New Orleans lost more 

than half its population between July 2005 and 

January 2006. Over the same time period, 

St. Bernard Parish lost over 90 percent of its population. Another substantial population exodus occurred 

in the Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula Mississippi area. 

The area in and around Houston, Texas, which grew 

by nearly 100,000, appears to have received the 

largest single influx of refugees. A smaller, but still 

significant, increase took place in the Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana, metropolitan area.57

Significantly, some of the characteristics of residents 

who remained in the New Orleans Metropolitan 

Statistical Area (MSA) differed from those who 

55 U.S. Census Bureau, “2005 ACS Special Product for the Gulf 

Coast Area: Accuracy of the Data,” May 30, 2006, p. 3, accessed 

at <https://www2.census.gov/acs/2005_Gulf_Coast_Area_Data_

Profiles/GulfCoastMethodology.pdf> on November 20, 2012. 56 U.S. Census Bureau, “2005 ACS Special Product for the Gulf 

Coast Area: Accuracy of the Data,” May 30, 2006, pp. 1–4, accessed 

at <https://www2.census.gov/acs/2005_Gulf_Coast_Area_Data_

Profiles/GulfCoastMethodology.pdf> on November 20, 2012. 57 This description of population changes following the 2005 

hurricanes is based on information presented by Koerber, “Migration 

Patterns and Mover Characteristics,” pp. 1–10 and Table 2.
U.S. Census Bureau 169

moved. The ACS data revealed that those who 

remained in New Orleans following the hurricanes 

were older with a median age of 42.2, while the 

median age for those who moved outside the MSA 

was 29.5. The data also found that people living in 

owner-occupied housing units were more likely to 

remain than renters. Before Katrina, 68.2 percent of 

the population of New Orleans over the age of 1 year 

lived in owner-occupied housing units. After the hurricane, that increased to 78.3 percent.

Those who remained in the New Orleans MSA following Katrina were also more likely to be unemployed or 

not in the labor force than those who moved outside 

the MSA. Before Katrina, 41.0 percent of the population 16 years of age or older were unemployed or not 

Table 3.

Out-of-Scope Rates

State Substate area

January–

August 

2005 out-ofscope rate 

(percent)

September–

December 

2005 out-ofscope rate 

(percent)

Alabama. . .  State total. 

Alabama. . .  FEMA IPA area. 

Alabama. . .  Balance of state. 

Louisiana. . .  State total. .

Louisiana. . .  FEMA IPA area. .

Louisiana. . .  Balance of state. 

Mississippi. .  State total. . .

Mississippi. .  FEMA IPA area. . .

Mississippi. .  Balance of state. . 

Texas. . . . . . .  State

Texas. . . . . . .  FEMA IP

Texas. . . . . . .  Balance of

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “2005 ACS Special Product for the 

Gulf Coast Area; Quality Measures,” June 5, 2006, p. 4.

Table 4.

Estimated Population of Counties/Parishes in Selected Areas Within the FEMA Designated Area

State County

Household Population 

Estimate, 

July 1, 2005

Household Population 

Estimate, 

January 1, 2006

Baton Rouge metro area. . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Orleans metro area. . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula metro area. .  X. . . . . . 

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . 

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mississippi. . . . . . . . . . . . 

Houston metro area. . . . . . . . . . . 

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

X Not applicable.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
170 U.S. Census Bureau

in the labor force. Following Katrina, that percentage 

rose to 47.8.

The racial composition of the New Orleans MSA 

changed significantly following Hurricane Katrina. 

Before the hurricane, 54.6 percent of the population 

consisted of non-Hispanic Whites 1 year of age and 

older. Six months later, 66.8 percent of the population 

1 year of age and older was non-Hispanic White. The 

number of African Americans 1 year of age and older 

made up 35.7 percent of the population. After the 

hurricane, this decreased to 21.5 percent. Of those 

who left the New Orleans MSA following the hurricane, 32.1 percent were non-Hispanic White and 59.3 

percent were African American.

The ACS data, combined with estimated population 

counts, provided the kind of information neighborhood leaders, county and city managers, and other 

local officials needed to begin to assess the magnitude of the disaster and to plan the steps that they 

needed to take to move forward. They needed the 

estimates of the age and sex distribution of those 

who remained to plan for schools, roads, senior centers, soup kitchens, and other public services. They 

also needed the estimates of the number and characteristics of those who remained and who departed 

to apply for federal and state aid. This proved that 

the ACS could provide some of the data needed for 

communities to recover from natural disasters.

DATA USERS AND USES

In addition to the Annual Population Estimates 

required from the Census Bureau according to Title 

13, newly available ACS data became fundamental 

to the allocations, data needs, and functioning of 

several federal agencies. Heading into the first 1-year 

data release in 2005, the Census Bureau focused on 

outreach to federal data users, both as one of the 

largest stakeholders and as a source of funding.58 The 

integration of ACS data into 184 federal programs 

influenced the distribution of 29 percent of all federal 

assistance, or $416 billion, by the time of the release 

of the first multiyear estimates in 2008.59

Transportation and housing were two sectors of 

federal funding that saw early extensive utilization of 

ACS data. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development first implemented ACS data in 2005, 

58 ACS Communications Plan, February 2005.

59 For FY 2008. Reamer, Andrew D., Surveying for Dollars: 

The role of the American Community Survey in the Geographic 

Distribution of Federal Funds, Brookings Institute Metropolitan 

Policy Program, July 2010.

for their estimates of next year’s baseline rents, and 

in 2006 for Community Development Block Grants.60

Other agencies heavily reliant on ACS data for 

creating datasets included the Bureau of Economic 

Analysis (BEA), and their total and per capita personal income and Regional Price Parities data, and 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and their employment 

projections and Standard Occupational Classification 

system.61

The ability of ACS data to provide annual estimates at 

state and local levels also appealed to state and local 

officials. Out of the $416 billion allocated based on 

ACS data in 2008, $360.9 million went to the states, 

although much of this also passed on to counties and 

other local areas. The largest portion of this consisted of $261.1 billion in Medicaid. In order to help 

states deal with these significant allocations in the 

face of changing data sources, the Census Bureau 

hosted a conference focused on those data users in 

May 2005. The Census Bureau also transitioned to 

ACS data in the influential Census Transportation 

Planning Package. In addition, a 2007 report issued 

by the National Research Council’s Transportation 

Research Board supported Census Bureau guidelines 

that, starting with the collection of GQ data in 2006, 

ACS data could be used for areas with populations 

greater than 65,000, and in 2008, with the release of 

3-year data, for areas with populations greater than 

20,000.62

In addition to the inherent benefits of Census Bureau 

data to all levels of government, private users 

also benefitted from newer and more timely data. 

The media were prolific and visible users of ACS 

data, which helped illustrate several economic and 

60 “Rental Housing: HUD Can Improve Its Process for Estimating 

Fair Market Rents,” GAO-05-342, March 31, 2005, House Report 

109-365, 109th U.S. Congress, 2nd Session, January 31, 2006; 

“Using the ACS,” p. 89. 61 A proposed plan to use ACS data for the 2008 Office of 

Management and Budget delineation of Core Based Statistical 

Areas (CBSAs), did not pan out due to the delayed 5-year estimates, 

however OMB incorporated ACS data in the 2013 delineation, and 

became another major federal data user. Office of Management 

and Budget, “Recommendations From the Metropolitan and 

Micropolitan Statistical Area Standards Review Committee to 

the Office of Management and Budget Concerning Changes to 

the 2000 Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan 

Statistical Areas; Notice,” Federal Register, vol. 74, no. 28, p. 7174. 

Reamer, Andrew, “American Community Survey: Uses and Users,” 

The George Washington Institute of Public Policy, December 11, 

2012. 62 Using the American Community Survey, p. 118. The National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program consisted of several of 

the top stakeholders in the federal, state, local, and private level, as 

well as the full support of the Federal Highway Administration and 

several other federal agencies. NCHRP Report 588: A Guidebook 

for Using American Community Survey Data for Transportation 

Planning, Using the ACS, Transportation Research Board, 2007.
U.S. Census Bureau 171

demographic points. Releases of ACS data also led 

news cycles when the information illustrated either 

significant changes in social and economic fields. 

Retail businesses, like many other users who relied 

on decennial data, switched to ACS data to help 

place new stores and determine services. Nonprofit 

and advocacy groups made the same transition from 

decennial to ACS data when determining their outreach and fundraising goals.63

MODIFICATIONS

Adding, Modifying, and Deleting Questions

From 2005 to 2010, national implementation and 

changing data user needs resulted in several modifications in the questionnaire, methodology, and data 

products. These changes mainly came about for 

two reasons: survey improvement and governmental need. Examples of survey improvement include 

changes to the CAPI, modifications to the questionnaire to facilitate data capture, and changes in sample size. Survey improvements also included the 2006 

Content Test, which tested modifications to existing 

questions and potential additions. Governmental 

need for new or changed content included the needs 

of Congress, governmental agencies, and the recommendations of the ACS Content Council. 

The content for the ACS closely mirrored the 2000 

Census long form and remained the same from 

2003–2007, with 25 housing and 42 population 

questions. On implementation in 2006, the GQ questionnaire kept all of the population questions except 

relationship to head of household, and only asked 

about food stamp benefits under housing.64 In 2006, 

the Office of Management and Budget, Congress, 

and the Census Bureau came to an agreement that 

helped facilitate content determinations in regard to 

frequency of data collection, level of geography compared to need, and other sources of data. The OMB 

Interagency Committee, co-chaired by the Census 

Bureau, obtained input from all federal agencies, and, 

in 2006, guidelines required requesting agencies to 

assist in the development and submission of draft 

questions as well as cover the cost, although different 

63 For a comprehensive list of examples, refer to Andrew 

Reamer, “American Community Survey: Uses and Users,” George 

Washington University Institute of Public Policy, 2012. 64 Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, 2006, 

p. 5-3. Despite using the same questionnaire, some people in certain 

GQs were not asked certain questions, and were considered out of 

the universe for certain GQ types.

arrangements on cost sharing developed throughout 

the next 4 years.65

Planning for the 2006 Content Test began in 2004, 

and aimed to provide results in time to modify the 

2008 ACS Questionnaire. There had always been a 

content test for the decennial census, and one was 

done before the 2010 Census for their items. The 

2006 ACS Content Test filled that role for the ACS. 

The Interagency Committee solicited advice on format and content requirements from other agencies 

in order to determine the topics to be tested in the 

Content Test. Most topics on the test were to test 

modified wording and format of existing question, 

but there were several new topics tested. Once the 

topics were determined, cognitive testing was done 

to develop the best version of the questions to test. 

The 2006 ACS Content Test consisted of a “control” 

treatment and a “test” treatment. For existing topics where we were testing modified wording, the 

control treatment used the current version and the 

test treatment used the best version coming out of 

cognitive testing. For new topics, there were two 

versions tested, one in each treatment. The test used 

similar data collection methods as the regular 2006 

ACS, however for operational reasons it excluded a 

toll-free support number and did not undergo the 

CATI phase. Like other content tests at the Census 

Bureau, it included a content reinterview, done 

on the telephone, to measure response variance, 

gross difference rates, and net difference rates.66

The 2006 ACS Content Test also excluded GQs, the 

Failed Edit Follow-Up, and only tested the continental United States. In order to gauge the impact of 

the changes, results from the content test were not 

edited or imputed using the complex ACS weighting procedure. The results of the 2006 Content Test 

were reflected in the changes made to the survey 

in 2008, adding three new topics (health insurance, 

service-connected disability, and marital history) and 

modifying questions for many others.67

In 2007, the Census Bureau conducted the 2007 

ACS Grid-Sequential Test in order to gauge the 

impact of changing from a grid to sequential layout for the basic demographic questions on the 

65 Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, 2006, 

p. 5-7, and Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, 

2009, p. 5-5. 66 Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, 2009, 

p. 5-5, and U.S. Census Bureau, New and Modified Content on the 

2008 ACS Questionnaire: Results of Testing Prior to Implementation, 

2008. 67 Results from the content test are available at <www.census.

gov/programs-surveys/acs/methodology/content-test.2007.html>.
172 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5.

2003–2007 ACS Topics Listed by Type of Characteristic and Question Number

Table 5.1 2003−2007 ACS Topics Listed by Type of Characteristic and Question Number

Housing Population

Household size Name

H1 Units in Structure P1 Sex

H2 Year Structure Built P2 Age and Date of Birth

H3 Year Householder Moved Into Unit P3 Relationship to Householder

H4 Acreage P4 Marital Status

H5 Agricultural Sales P5 Hispanic Origin

H6 Business on Property P6 Race

H7 Rooms P7 Place of Birth

H8 Bedrooms P8 Citizenship

H9 Plumbing Facilities P9 Year of Entry

H10 Kitchen Facilities P10 Type of School and School Enrollment

H11 Telephone Service Available P11 Educational Attainment

H12 Vehicles Available P12 Ancestry

H13 House Heating Fuel P13 Language Spoken at Home, Ability to Speak English

H14 Cost of Utilities P14 Residence 1 Year Ago (Migration)

H15 Food Stamp Benefit P15 Disability: Sensory, Physical

H16 Condominium Status and Fee P16 Disability: Mental, Self-care

H17 Tenure P17 Disability: Going out Alone, Ability to Work

H18 Monthly Rent P18 Fertility

H19 Value of Property P19 Grandparents as Caregivers

H20 Real Estate Taxes P20 Veteran Status

H21 Insurance for Fire, Hazard, and Flood P21 Period of Military Service

H22 Mortgage Status, Payment, Real Estate

Taxes

P22 Years of Military Service

P23 Worked Last Week

H23 Second or Junior Mortgage Payment or

Home Equity Loan

P24 Place of Work

P25 Means of Transportation

H24 Mobile Home Costs P26 Private Vehicle Occupancy

H25 Seasonal Residence P27 Time Leaving Home to Go to Work

P28 Travel Time to Work

P29 Layoff, Temporarily Absent, Informed of Recall or Return

Date

P30 Looking for Work

P31 Available to Work

P32 When Last Worked

P33 Weeks Worked

P34 Usual Hours Worked Per Week

P35 Class of Worker

P36 Employer

P37 Type or Kind of Business

P38 Industry

P39 Occupation

P40 Primary Job Activity

P41 Income in the Past 12 Months (by type of income)

P42 Total Income

Puerto Rico Community Survey (PRCS) Content

The content for the PRCS is identical to that used in the United States. The PRCS includes six questions that are worded differently from those on the ACS to accommodate cultural and geographic

differences between the two areas. (See Figure 5.1 for an example of ACS questions that were

modified for the PRCS.)

ACS Design and Methodology Content Development Process 5−3

U.S. Census Bureau

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, 2009, p. 5-3.

paper questionnaire in an effort to better align with 

the 2010 Decennial Census format. The 2007 GridSequential Test was a mailout test only. And like the 

2006 Content Test, excluded GQs, the Failed Edit 

Follow-Up, tested only within the continental United 

States, and omitted, edited, or imputed data and did 

not include the complex ACS weighting procedure.68

Congressional need played an important role in 

the formation of questionnaire content, which was 

reflected in the 2006 Content Test and in subsequent 

testing and changes to the questionnaire. Congress 

68 New and Modified Content on the 2008 ACS Questionnaire: 

Results of Testing Prior to Implementation, 2008, pp. 2–3.

recognized that the true usefulness of 2010 multiyear 

data would come with the release of the 2005–2009 

5-year data in 2010, and based most requirements 

on the future release of 5-year data products.69 The 

Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization 

Act of 2007 required the Secretary of Commerce to 

69 Congressional need was also influenced by the lack of longform data to update spending guidelines in 2010. As demonstrated 

by the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 

Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Public 

Law 109-246 (redistricting). Also, some people within the Census 

Bureau considered the 2008–2012 MYE as the true replacement 

for 2010 data, being centered on the census year and released at 

around the same time as long-form data was previously released, 

however data users quickly showed their preference for 2006–2010 

data based on 2010 population controls.
U.S. Census Bureau 173

include health insurance questions for children.70 The 

Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2007 required 

the ACS questionnaire to ask about computer and 

internet use.71

Census Bureau coordination with the OMB to provide 

data for federal agencies guided several changes 

or additions to the ACS questionnaire content. In 

2003, the Department of Veterans Affairs, OMB, 

and the Census Bureau worked towards addressing 

stakeholder concerns, and led to the addition of a 

service-connected disability question on the 2006 

Content Test and the subsequently revised 2008 

questionnaire.72 Questions regarding marital history 

and health insurance information requested by the 

Department of Health and Human Services underwent testing in the 2006 Content Test and saw implementation in 2008.73 Another small change was the 

removal of the part of the question on food stamps 

that asked about total value, reducing nonresponse 

70 Available at <www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/housebill/3963>, and in 2009 <www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/

house-bill/2>. 71 Available at <www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/

senate-bill/1492>. 72 Veterans Affairs required a measurement of six levels of 

service-related disability based on the percentage of disability as 

assigned by the department. In order to address these needs, and 

those of other data-users, OMB convened the ACS Subcommittee 

on Disability Measurement in 2003, and asked the National Center 

for Health Statistics (NCHS) to take the lead in assessing the 

adequacy of the census disability questions. The results of the 

NCHS’s ACS Disability Working Group informed the questions 

regarding the topic on the 2006 Content Test, and led to the 

addition of a two-parted question, question 27 a/b, on the 2008 

Questionnaire, with results found capable of producing useful 

results. Kristen Miller and Theresa J. DeMaio, National Center for 

Health Statistics, Study Series; Survey Methodology #2006-6, 

“Report of Cognitive Research on Proposed American Community 

Survey Disability Questions,” August 28, 2006; Matthew Brault, 

Sharon Stern, and David Raglin, U.S. Census Bureau, “Evaluation 

Report Covering Disability,” 2006 ACS Content Test Report P.4, 

January 3, 2007; Sarah Luckett Clark and David A Raglin, 

U.S. Census Bureau, “Evaluation Report Covering ServiceConnected Disability,” 2006 ACS Content Test Report P.5.c, 

January 5, 2007; Kelly Ann Holder, “Evaluation of New Content 

on the 2008 American Community Survey: Service-Connected 

Disability Status and Ratings: August 2009;” and Matthew W. 

Brault, U.S. Census Bureau, “Review of Changes to the 

Measurement of Disability in the 2008 American Community 

Survey,” September 22, 2009. 73 Marital history was required by the discontinuation of the 

DHHS’s own marriage and divorce survey, and the desire to use the 

ACS as the new source of primary data. The 2006 Content Test 

showed several problems with the question, however responses 

were still adequate for use by the DHHS. Martin O’Connell, Gretchen 

Gooding, and Leah Ericson, U.S. Census Bureau, “Evaluation 

Report Covering Marital History,” 2006 ACS Content Test Report, 

P. 9, January 3, 2007, pp. iii, 21–22; Joanne Pascale, “American 

Community Survey Cognitive Testing of Health Insurance 

Questions,” March 25, 2005; Chuck Nelson and Leah Ericson, 

U.S. Census Bureau, “Evaluation Report Covering Health Insurance,” 

2006 ACS Content Test Report, P. 8, January 3, 2007; Joanna 

Turner, Michel Boudreaux and Victoria Lynch, “A Preliminary 

Evaluation of Health Insurance Coverage in the 2008 American 

Community Survey,” September 22, 2009.

and response discrepancies.74 The National Science 

Foundation, in order to support the National Survey 

of College Graduates, requested that the Interagency 

Council research adding a question for field of degree 

for college graduates, which underwent testing in 

2007, and implementation in January 2009.75

CHANGING PROCEDURES

iCADE

In 2007, the ACS transitioned from a key-from-paper 

(KFP) data input method to a key-from-image (KFI) 

method, utilizing the Census Bureau’s iCADE hardware and software. A live test, conducted in January 

2007, double-keyed a small sample of stateside 

English ACS forms using both KFP and KFI. For all 

programs that moved from KFP to iCADE in 2008, 

the Census Bureau experienced budgetary savings 

of 60 percent, with error rates of less than 1 percent, 

marking a successful transition.76

As part of the transition to iCADE, the questionnaire 

also underwent significant revisions. In 2005, tests on 

the effects of a KFI questionnaire, designed primarily 

by the iCADE team who focused on machine readability over respondent effect, showed that several 

areas, mainly Hispanic origin, marital status, sex, and 

race saw a significant increase in nonresponse with 

the new form. The new KFI design decreased the 

ease of navigation for respondents, and census officials decided to delay the full scale implementation 

of iCADE for the ACS. The changes applied from this 

testing led to the redesigned form used for full implementation in 2007, and helped address the increase 

in nonresponse rates for all problem areas except 

sex.77 Further testing and research helped modify the 

questionnaire from a grid/matrix design to a sequential design in 2008, which helped further reduce both 

unit and item nonresponse rates.78

74 John J. Hisnanick, Tracy Loveless, and John Chestnut, 2006 

ACS Content Test Report H.6, “Evaluation Report Covering Receipt 

of Food Stamps,” 2006 ACS Content Test Report H.6, January 3, 

2007. 75 David Raglin, Mary Frances Zelenak, Mary C. Davis, and 

Jennifer Tancreto, U.S. Census Bureau, “Testing a New Field of 

Degree Question for the American Community Survey,” 2007 ACS 

Content Test Report, May 2008. 76 ACS KFI Requirements Processing Team Meeting Notes, 

December 11, 2006, and January 7, 2008, and Stephanie Studds, 

“iCADE the Data Capture System of the U.S. Census Bureau,” 2009. 77 Deborah H. Griffin and Sandra L. Clark, Respondent Effects 

Associated With Questionnaires Designed to Accommodate Survey 

Processing, American Community Survey Research and Evaluation 

Program, September 15, 2009. 78 John Chestnut, “Effects of Using a Grid Versus a Sequential 

Form on the ACS Basic Demographic Data,” 2008 American 

Community Survey Grid-Sequential Test, March 6, 2008.
174 U.S. Census Bureau

Modifying CAPI

One issue identified by concerned Census Bureau 

officials revolved around the low response rate during 

the last phase of data collection: CAPI. Starting in 

2005, the Census Bureau instituted a modified CAPI 

process designed to increase responses among 

traditionally hard-to-reach populations, including 

Hispanics and racial minorities. In order to get more 

data for hard-to-reach populations to improve their 

estimates, census tracts with low cooperation rates 

were sampled for CAPI at higher rates, while maintaining cost neutrality. In sampling strata defined by 

large tracts and whose cooperation rate was equal 

to or greater than 60 percent, the sampling rate 

was multiplied by 0.92 (reduced by 8 percent). This 

reduction in sample for these strata provided the cost 

savings necessary to offset the increases in cost for 

the CAPI operation where the CAPI sampling rates 

were increased.79

Other changes, enacted in 2008, also focused on 

updating the CAPI process. One change focused 

on reducing resources spent on vacant structures 

through better training of FRs. Another change 

assigned the status of head of household to the first 

named person over 15 if one was not already identified. This latter changed helped identify same-sex 

couples that had otherwise not been counted as 

such.80

CRITICS AND RESPONSES

In addition to friction over funding and continued 

worry over response rates and effects of the ACS on 

reducing costs for 2010, Congress provided input 

on the continuation and inclusion of several categories. Some Congressional efforts, like the Census 

Oversight Efficiency and Management Reform Act 

of 2010, foreshadowed changes the Census Bureau 

would later make, like increased opportunities for 

online response. The perceived intrusive nature of the 

ACS also led to some high profile attacks by individual legislators. A bill introduced in July 2009 aimed 

to make the majority of the ACS voluntary on the 

grounds that the ACS asked overly intrusive questions, some of which could be construed as offensive, 

and that despite the beneficial intentions of the ACS 

to provide data, it also constituted an overreach by 

the government beyond the decennial mandate of 

the Constitution. The bill did not proceed after being 

79 MEMO-ACS-DOC 2, 2005.

80 Design and Methodology: American Community Survey, 2009, 

pp. 4–6 and 7–6.

referred to the Subcommittee on Information Policy, 

Census, and National Archives.81 Another bill introduced in April 2010 that would also make the majority 

of the ACS voluntary, however, it also did not proceed 

out of the subcommittee.82

Several private individuals, organizations and internet communities agreed that the ACS went too 

far. Privacy advocates, like the Electronic Privacy 

Information Center and the American Civil Liberties 

Union voiced concerns about the privacy of citizens 

and the potential for data abuse. Fringe websites 

across the political spectrum decried the perceived 

invasive and threatening nature of the detailed survey 

that warned legal action for nonresponse.83 In addition to the regular collection of letters to the editor 

that accompanies most survey or decennial census 

activities, some syndicated columnists also came 

out against the ACS, however coverage in traditional 

media sources usually included a balanced discussion 

as opposed to outright attacks.84

Among data uses, the two interrelated areas of criticism were related to standard error and sample size 

adjustments. In 2006, data users voiced concerns 

about sample size regarding accuracy of the data for 

uses in transportation planning, worrying that the 

smaller sample size might mask changes and reduce 

confidence in the data.85 A Census Bureau report 

later showed that while the sample size had stayed 

the same, the number of addresses in the country 

had continued to increase. Thus, the sampling rate 

had effectively decreased from 2.26 percent in 2005 

to 2.12 percent in 2009. Based on the 2009 sample frame, this yielded an approximately 11 percent 

sample for the 2005–2009 time period. In comparison, the long-form sample was based upon an 

overall fixed target sampling rate of approximately 

17 percent, leading to increased sample sizes with 

each subsequent census.86 The need for an increase 

81 Ted Poe, “American Community Survey-Too Much 

Governmental Intrusion,” Congressional Record, July 15, 2009, 111th 

Congress, 1st Session, Vol. 155, No. 106; Poe, Ted. H.R.3131, “To Make 

Participation in the American Community Survey Voluntary, Except 

With Respect to Certain Basic Questions,” 111th Congress. 82 Todd Akin, H.R.5046, “Census Clarification and Privacy Act,” 

111th Congress. 83 Examples include, but are not limited to, postings on the blogs 

Mental Militia, Truth is Treason, and Daily Kos. 84 For examples, refer to the 2005 syndicated column in 

Texas newspapers (The McAllen Monitor, Sep 25 and The Odessa 

American, 27 Sep), Debra Saunders June 8, 2009 syndicated 

column, or Walter E. Williams’ February 19, 2010, syndicated 

column, which represent just a minor portion of editorial criticisms. 85 Ronald Eash, “Impacts of Sample Sizes in the American 

Community Survey.” 86 Steven Hefter, “American Community Survey Sample Size 

Research,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau 175

in sample size would be one issue the Census Bureau 

worked to address in 2011, following updates from the 

2010 Census.

In 2008, the Census Bureau responded to the 

concerns of the Census Advisory Committee of 

Professional Associations with a report examining 

the effects of population controls based on various 

benchmarks, such as the 1990 and 2000 Censuses. 

The report found that due to underrepresented 

populations receiving better coverage in the 2000 

Census, there were noticeable discrepancies in estimates using the different baselines for ACS controls.87

Following the 2010 Census, the ACS program in 

conjunction with the Population Estimates Program 

produced a note describing the differences between 

population controls based on the 2000 Census and 

the 2010 Census as well as the implication when comparing the 2009 ACS products to the 2010 ACS products. Multiyear estimates that crossed this threshold 

used a combination of population estimates that were 

either fully based on the 2010 Census or made use 

of both the 2000 and 2010 Censuses. The methodology effectively addressed the discrepancies inherent 

when switching baselines for the ACS controls.88

Unlike decennial long-form data, ACS data provided 

a selection of choices, and matching the right multiyear estimates (MYE) data with the data need proved 

challenging to some data users. Additionally, whereas 

long-form decennial data had a single point in time 

reference, April 1 of the census year, ACS data underwent monthly surveying, which meant even 1-year 

data led to misunderstandings and complications for 

data users when trying to match ACS data to a single 

point in time. Despite the fact that the total 5-year 

sample size did not equal the sample size of the 2000 

Census long-form data, the Census Bureau reasoned 

that the quality and timeliness of the data more than 

made up for the sample size deficiencies.89

The Census Bureau released an accompanying report 

to the first multiyear estimates in 2008 in order to 

preempt concerns data users would have finding and 

using ACS data correctly. The report suggested there 

87 Victoria Velkoff, “The Use of Population Estimates as Controls 

to the American Community Survey: An Evaluation,” American 

Community Survey Research and Evaluation Program, U.S. Census 

Bureau, April 11, 2008. 88 U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey Research 

Note: Change in Population Controls,” September 22, 2011. 89 Michael Beaghan and Lynn Weidman, “Statistical Issues of 

Interpretation of the American Community Survey’s One-, Three-, 

and Five-Year Period Estimates,” 2008 American Community Survey 

Research Memorandum Series, U.S. Census Bureau, October 2008, 

pp. 5–6.

were several key concepts that users should understand when using the data, including that the MYE 

represented period estimates, and not an estimate 

of the center month or year, and that a relationship 

existed between the precision of different MYEs. 

Additionally, small subpopulations could have large 

standard errors even in large geographies. It also 

emphasized the importance of controls and the 

trade-off between currency and precision of estimates. The authors also outlined when to use 1-year 

estimates, versus when to use MYEs, and noted that 

as users began using MYEs they expected the discussion around MYEs to evolve and many of the issues to 

resolve themselves.90

FULFILLMENT AND IMPROVEMENT

The release of 5-year data products in 2010 represented the first complete life cycle of the ACS. The 

ACS data release closely coincided with the 2010 

Census data release, which led to a slight reduction of 

focus and some confusion as data users had to identify and choose between two data sources. The initial 

ACS data release of about 1,000 tables for nearly 

700,000 different geographic areas took place on 

December 14, 2010, with a later release schedule 

for other data products based on 5-year data, like 

American-Indian and Alaska Natives and other specific small population data.

Prior to the release of 5-year data products, the 

Census Bureau solicited advice for proposed products through the Federal Register on March 6, 2009, 

and received 26 responses from federal and local 

governments, commercial organizations, statistical 

and policy groups, and individual citizens.91 Some 

federal agencies, like the BEA, approved of the 

changes and noted how the new timeliness of data 

would improve services and product quality. Several 

of the commercial, policy, and private organizations 

expressed their pleasure with the timeliness of the 

data, but worried over representation of smaller areas 

and populations, and how the data would be presented through data files and American FactFinder.92

The vast majority of negative responses came from 

transportation agencies, including the Department 

of Transportation and dozens of local, state, and 

90 Beaghan, 2008, pp. 7, 46, 50.

91 The Census Bureau asked commenters to focus on four 

subjects; block group level geography, types of data products, 

restrictions required for disclosure avoidance or statistical reliability, 

and frequency of data release. Federal Register, March 6, 2009. 92 American FactFinder was the Census Bureau’s proprietary 

online data dissemination tool designed to provide data based on 

subject in addition to individual reports.
176 U.S. Census Bureau

regional transportation boards, as well as the 

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

and the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials. Transportation and 

metropolitan planners worried that the disclosure 

avoidance techniques used in small areas and at the 

block-group level reduced the quality of data tables 

compared to long-form data for transportation, 

land use, and neighborhood planning, and in some 

cases, data users worried about effects of the data 

on measuring climate change and social factors.93 An 

interdivisional group at the Census Bureau weighed 

user feedback, along with concerns about meeting 

93 There are several dozen responses, but some of the more 

illustrative examples include the AMPO response of April 20, 2009, 

the ASHTO response of April 14, 2009, the USDOT response of 

April 17, 2009.

user expectations and releasing survey estimates with 

known reliability shortcomings.94

In the decade bookended by the release of the first 

5-year data products and the start of the 2020 

Census, the ACS would face several changes and 

challenges. Some, such as increases in sample size, 

voluntary response, and funding issues, would echo 

previously voiced issues, others represented new 

challenges, like updates to statistic and survey methodology, oversight and review, and unique potentials 

of the ACS like subannual data, data products, and 

data confidentiality. Throughout all of this the ACS 

would continue to demonstrate its value and evolve 

as one of the country’s preeminent surveys and 

source of data products.

94 Decisions resulting from this process included that only a 

subset of the 1- and 3-year detailed tables would be published for 

the 5-year products and to only produce one version (collapsed 

or not collapsed) of any Detailed Table. Additionally, the Census 

Bureau decided to exclude the selected population profiles, for 

specific groups like American Indians and Alaska Natives, from the 

5-year data product line as it was believed that the more complete 

SF4 and AIAN SF-like products should be produced from the 5-year 

files every 5 years. Deborarh Griffin, “Development of American 

Community Survey Data Products,” 2012.