1. Demographic Full Count Review Presentation to the FSCPE March 26, 2001 Washington D.C.

2. Overview Purpose of Count Review Accomplishments What Was Learned Measures of Success Conclusions

3. What was the purpose of Count Review? Identify, Investigate, and Document Issues Related To: Geographic Completeness Coverage Demographic Reasonableness Edits and Imputations Review and Clear Apportionment and Redistricting Data on Time Provide Insight Into Census 2000 Data Quality

4. What was accomplished overall? 107 Analysts Collectively Reviewed 252 Files and Documented 4,421 Issues 53 FSCPE Reviewers 15 IPC/HHES/POP Reviewers 39 Subject Matter Analysts Apportionment Count Clearance Based on Thorough Review of All State Files Redistricting Data Under Review for All States

5. What did the FSCPE accomplish? Reviewed 39 States and Puerto Rico -- 182 Data Files and Products Identified and Documented 1,265 Issues Issues Identified Were Consistently Substantial and Well Documented Contributed 6,751 Hours to the Count Review Effort NOTE: Census reviewers working with the FSCPE reviewed the balance of the states and documented 665 issues

6. Additional Benefits of FSCPE Participation Extended Opportunity to Work With FSCPE Members From Across the Nation and Puerto Rico Extended Exposure to Customized GIS Application, and Other Frontline Demographic Software Detailed Knowledge of Census Data and Process for Creating the Redistricting Products

7. What was learned during Count Review? Special Place / Group Quarters (SP/GQ) Issues Account for 57% of Issues Documented The Remaining Issues Covered General Population, Hispanic Origin, Race, Age, Sex, and Other Data Documentation of Issues Does Not Indicate Systematic Quality Issues FSCPE Analysts Did Not Identify Coverage As a Major Issue

8. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 1. Comprehensive: Geography and Content 2. Timely: Completed on Schedule 3. Continuing Utility: Results, Process and Tools Are Useful Beyond Count Review 4. Lessons Learned: The Program Is Evaluated and Results Are Used in the Future 5. Availability: Results and Learnings Are Part of the Public Record (Subject to Title 13 Limits) 6. Confidentiality: NO Confidentiality Breaches 7. Cooperation: Joint Census – FSCPE Effort Was Successful and Valuable

9. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 1. Comprehensive: Over 1 Billion Data Records Reviewed at State, County, MCD, Place, and Tract Levels Population, Housing, GQ, and Demographic Characteristic Data Reviewed at Every Stage of the Review Processing Redundancies Allowed for Multiple Checks on Data Integrity As the Data Arrived in Count Review Computers

10. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 2. Timely: All Files and Products Reviewed to Date by Count Review Were Cleared on Time “Just-in-time” Tool Creation and Data Delivery Allowed for Maximum Flexibility in Working With Unknown Data

11. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 3. Continuing Utility: Issues From Count Review Already in Queue for CQR Activities Tools and Techniques Will Be Distributed As Widely As Possible After Review Is Over Count Review Is the Springboard for a Broader BOC/FSCPE Partnership ACS and Estimates Reviews Will Incorporate Lessons From Count Review

12. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 4. Lessons Learned: Evaluation Workshop Will Tie Together the Forms and Specific Recommendations for the Future Lessons Learned Documents Are Under Development for the Count Review Process and Tools So That Sample Review Gets the Benefits Census Managers Already Using Results to Plan 2010

13. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 5. Availability: Issues Are Forwarded to Geography Division for Updating TIGER and MAF Issue Resolution Will Flow to Estimates to Update the Base Internally Raised CQR Issues Will Draw Heavily on Issues Identified by the FSCPE

14. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 6. Confidentiality: No Reported Title 13 Violations No Substantiated Leaks of Restricted Data

15. Did We Meet the Program Measures of Success? 7. Cooperation: FSCPE-Census Partnership Directly Contributed to the Success of the Review FSCPE Participants Valued the Opportunity to Work With Their Colleagues and With the Census Bureau Staff Census Bureau Reviewers Benefited From the Opportunity to Consult With FSCPE Participants

16. Program Evaluation – Survey Results FSCPE Participants Provided Feedback On: Process and Tools Collaboration with Census Staff and Colleagues Effectiveness of the Review Survey Summary Is Provided as a Handout

17. What can we conclude about Census 2000 quality? The Disproportionately Large Number of SP/GQ Issues Suggests Systemic Problems in the Collection of These Data The Analysis Cannot Disclose Whether the GQ Enumeration Was Better or Worse Than Previous Censuses The Balance of the Issues, While Not Revealing Any Broad Data Quality Patterns, May Be Significant Individually and May Receive Further Analysis in the Context of CQR.

18. What can we conclude about the count review process? Process: A Structured, Organized Process Was Vital to the Success of the Review People: Cross-organizational Teams and the Federal – State Partnership Enabled a Thorough Review Tools: the Use of Automated Tools Was a Critical Success Factor Training: All State Participants and Subject Matter Analysts Attended Four Days of Training Prior to the Review, Which Established a Common Base for Procedures and Expectations Communications: Intra- and Inter-divisional Communication Was a Critical Success Factor