Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Census adjustment: Statistical promise or illusion?

  • Symposium: Population Politics
  • Published:
Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Suggested Further Readings

  • Anderson, M. and S.E. Fienberg.Who Counts? The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L.D., M.L. Eaton, D.A. Freedman, S.P. Klein, R.A. Olshen, K.W. Wachter, M.T. Wells, and D. Ylvisaker, “Statistical Controversies in Census 2000,”Jurimetrics, 39, 1999, pp. 347–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M.L., A.A. White, and K.F. Rust, eds.Measuring a Changing Nation: Modern Methods for the 2000 Census. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darga, K.Sampling and the Census. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, D.A., P.B. Stark, and K.W. Wachter, “A Probability Model for Census Adjustment,”Mathematical Population Studies, 9, 2001, pp. 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, R.E., ed. “Three Papers on the Census Adjustment,”Statistical Science, 9, 1994, pp. 457–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prewitt, K., “Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation: Statement on the Feasibility of Using Statistical Methods to Improve the Accuracy of Census 2000,”Federal Register, 65, 2000, pp. 38373–38398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenker, N., ed. “Special Section on the 1990 Undercount,”Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1993, pp. 1044–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skerry, P.Counting on the Census? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M.P, ed. “Special Section on Census Undercount Measurement Methods and Issues,”Survey Methodology, 18, 1992, pp. 1–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau.Report of the Excutive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy. With supporting documentation. Washington, D.C., 2001. http://www.census.gov

  • Wachter, K.W. and D.A. Freedman. “The Fifth Cell,”Evaluation Review, 24, 2000, pp. 191–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachter, K.W. and D.A. Freedman. “Measuring Local Heterogeneity with 1990 U. S. Census Data,”Demographic Research an on-line journal of the Max Planck Institute. Volume 3, Article 10, 2000. http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol3/10/

Download references

Authors
  1. David A. Freedman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth W. Wachter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

David A. Freedman is professor of statistics and mathematics, University of California, Berkeley. His research interests are in the foundations of statistics, modeling, and policy analysis. Kenneth W. Wachter is professor of demography and statistics, University of California, Berkeley. His research interests include mathematical demography, demographic heterogeneity, computer microsimulation, kinship forecasting, and statistical astronomy. Both authors testified for the United States against adjustment, in the Census cases of 1980 and 1990. They have also testified in Congressional hearings, and consulted for the Department of Commerce on the adjustment decision.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Freedman, D.A., Wachter, K.W. Census adjustment: Statistical promise or illusion?. Soc 39, 26–33 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02712617

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02712617

Keywords

Search

Navigation