An Assessment of Addresses on the Master Address File Missing in the Census or Geocoded to the Wrong Collection Block

By Ruhnke, Megan C.

Book Id: WPLBN0000579774
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 0.1 MB
Reproduction Date: 2005

Title:	An Assessment of Addresses on the Master Address File Missing in the Census or Geocoded to the Wrong Collection Block
Author:	Ruhnke, Megan C.
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government publications, Census., Census report
Collections:	Government Library Collection, U.S. Census Bureau Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	United States Census Bureau Department


Citation APA MLA Chicago C. Ruhnk, B. M. (n.d.). An Assessment of Addresses on the Master Address File Missing in the Census or Geocoded to the Wrong Collection Block. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Statistical Reference Document

Excerpt
Excerpt: One of the results of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation included a representative sample of addresses that were coded as ?missing? from the census. This was a result of the independent listing, matching and field work that was conducted as part of the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation work. Our evaluation conducted additional research to better understand these ?missing? addresses and to examine the reasons for their status of ?missing? after the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Final Housing Unit work was completed. We matched the addresses coded as ?missing? to all non-duplicate housing units on the Master Address File in a larger geographic search area than the one used by the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation. We searched for matches in the tract which included each address, and all surrounding tracts.

Table of Contents
CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 The 1990 Housing Unit Coverage Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 The 1998 Master Address File Quality Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3 The Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation in Census 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.4 DMAF deliverability criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.5 Reasons for exclusion of units on the DMAF from Census 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2. METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.1 Sample selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 Stages of matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 The matching search area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Computer processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.5 Before Followup clerical matching and Field Followup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.6 After Followup clerical matching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.7 Estimation and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.8 Original source of an address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.9 Applying quality assurance procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3. LIMITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.1 We assumed the P-sample block was correct if we did not find the address in the MAF block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.2 We assume the P-sample nonmatches are residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3 The rate of erroneously deleted units from the Unduplication operation may be overstated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.4 We are limited in our ability to match non-city-style addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.5 E-sample nonmatches were not checked for geocoding error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.6 The basic street address size variable was overstated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.7 We are unable to determine which Census 2000 operation provided the incorrect geocode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3.8 We are unable to estimate the geocoding error associated with Group Quarters . . . . 18 4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.1 What is the total estimated percentage of census addresses geocoded to the incorrect Census 2000 collection block? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 4.2 Does the geocoding error estimate vary by type of enumeration area? . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3 Does the geocoding error estimate vary by size of structure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.4 Does the geocoding error estimate vary by census region or Regional Office? . . . . . . 20 4.5 Why are there addresses in the census, geocoded to an A.C.E. sample block, but coded as missing by the A.C.E.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22