Address Coverage Improvement and Evaluation Program – 2005 National Estimate of Coverage of the Master Address File

  • Susan Perrone

This evaluation reports the results of research and analysis undertaken by the U.S. Census Bureau. It is part of a broad program, the Address Coverage Improvement and Evaluation Program, designed to assess a range of issues related to housing unit coverage and quality of the Master Address File. In the U.S. Census Bureau Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, strategic goal #3 requires that the Census Bureau “implement a comprehensive plan for periodic Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing evaluation and corrective activities that will guide planning for cost-effective improvements to coverage and geocoding operations” (U.S. Census Bureau 2006). The plan for meeting these goals included the production of an annual report of the National Estimate of Coverage of the Master Address File.

We calculate the National Estimate of Coverage each year using the Census 2000 housing unit count as our baseline housing unit estimate for the fifty states and District of Columbia for April 1, 2000. We then use the Population Division’s housing unit estimates to calculate the change in the housing unit count for years subsequent to 2000. We use this change estimate to update the 2000 baseline and obtain truth estimates for the number of housing units for 2002 through 2005. Finally, we compare the estimated true housing unit count to annual housing unit counts from the Master Address File, which is the Census Bureau’s continually updated database of living quarters, to arrive at net coverage estimates.

Keywords

Migration Nash Verse 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bainter, S. (2006). Electronic mail communication, September 18.Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, D., M. Beaghen, J. Burcham, and D. Smith (2003). Final Report for the Census 2000 Housing Unit Coverage Study, O.3, February 21, Internal report.Google Scholar
  3. Burcham, J. (1999). 1998 Master Address File Quality Improvement Program, June 1.Google Scholar
  4. Colosi, R., A. Kwiat, and S. Perrone (2006). Evaluation of Two Subcategories of the Delivery Sequence File. In 2006 Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Government Statistics Section (CD-Rom), Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  5. Devine, J. (2004). Electronic mail communication, December 23.Google Scholar
  6. Devine, J. and C. Coleman (2002). People Might Move but Housing Units Don’t: An Evaluation of the State and County Housing Unit Estimates, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  7. Hogan, H. (2001). Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Survey: Effect of Excluding “Late Census Adds,” March 22, Internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  8. Johns, C. (2005). Address Coverage Improvement and Evaluation Program - 2004 National Estimate of Net Coverage of the Master Address File, September 29, Internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  9. Johns, C. and R. Colosi (2005). Address Coverage Improvement and Evaluation Program - 2002 and 2003 National Estimate of Net Coverage of the Master Address File - Revision II, June 15, Internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  10. Nash, F.F. (2000). Census 2000 Informational Memorandum No. 82, November 21, Internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  11. Pennington, R. and C. Loudermilk (2003). ACS/2010 Differences in Address List Development, June 20, Internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  12. Singh, R.P. and J. Dean (2005). Editing the MAF Extracts and Creating the Unit Frame Universe for the American Community Survey - 2006 American Community Survey Universe Creation Memorandum Series #ACS06-UC-3, June 15, Draft, internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  13. Sobel, J. (2005). Revision to the Address Characteristic Type (ACT) Code Tabulation and Database Creation, March 11, Internal memorandum.Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Census Bureau (2001). Census 2000 Master Address File Program Master Plan, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Census Bureau (2002). New DSF Layout - Valid for DSFs starting with Fall 2001, December 9, Internal Geography Division Portal Site.Google Scholar
  16. U.S. Census Bureau (2004). American Factfinder website, http://factfinder.census.gov/jsp/ saff/SAFFInfo.jsp?_pageId=sp4_decennial, accessed July 27, 2004.
  17. U.S. Census Bureau (2005). Annual Performance Plan for FY 2005, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Census Bureau (2006). U.S. Census Bureau Strategic Plan: FY 2006-2010, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Census Bureau, Geography Division (2004). The Census Bureau’s Master Address File (MAF) Census 2000 Address List Basics, accessed July 07, 2004 at http://www.census.gov/geo/mod/maf_basics.pdf.
  20. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2006a). 2005 Methodology for County Housing Unit Estimates, http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/2005_hu_meth.html, accessed August 20, 2006.
  21. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division (2006b). County Housing Unit Estimates, April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2004, http://www.census.gov/popest/housing/files/HU-EST2005_US.CSV, accessed August 21, 2006.
  22. U.S. Department of Commerce (2002). Inspection Report No. OSE-12065, A Better Strategy is needed for Managing the Nation’s Master Address File, September.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Perrone
    • 1
  1. 1.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations