National Academies Press: OpenBook

2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop (2020)

Chapter: 8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives

« Previous: 7 Use as Denominators for Rates and Baseline for Estimates
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

– 8 –
image
Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives

Matthew Snipp (Stanford University) moderated the first of two sessions devoted to the identification of small and special populations. This first session focused on American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) communities. To provide a little context, the AIAN population, while a small part of the total U.S. population, has had an outsize presence in the census. That outsize presence was a function of several things. American Indian tribes have a political and legal status that is unlike any other group in American society, and this status has been defined and bolstered by nearly 200 years of constitutional case law. In all that case law, the Supreme Court has never diminished the rights of tribes„ or has it subordinated the tribes to state and local governments.

The session included two presentations. Randall Akee (University of California, Los Angeles) and Norman DeWeaver (independent consultant) both discussed population counts on American Indian reservations and Alaska Native villages.

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

8.1 POPULATION COUNTS ON AMERICAN INDIAN RESERVATIONS AND ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGES, WITH AND WITHOUT THE APPLICATION OF DIFFERENTIAL PRIVACY

Randall Akee (Public Policy and American Indian Studies, University of California, Los Angeles) observed that data were hard to come by for American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian populations—as demographic groups in general and in the specific geographic context of tribal lands and reservations. The U.S. census was one of the primary sources of data used not only by researchers like himself but also by communities, tribal governments, and advocacy groups. There were administrative data out there, such as data from the Indian Health Service, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act), but the census was the primary source. These populations do not show up in other national surveys used for population analysis, such as the Current Population Survey, the Survey of Income and Program Participation, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. The census, then, has been the only game in town for these populations, and to guide activities such as tribal governance and demographic health research. They were also used for funding allocations, which Norman DeWeaver covered in another presentation (in Section 8.2).

8.1.1 Differences for American Indians on Reservations

Akee described the studies he conducted using the 2010 Demonstration Data Products (DDP) as well as versions of that data set in more user-friendly formats: the IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System and the Cornell Institute for Economic and Social Research (CISER).

In the original 2010 Census tabulations, Akee said that the AIAN population living on reservations have already experienced census undercount on the order of 5 percent. His analysis of the 2010 DDP data suggested that the 2020 disclosure avoidance system implementation as implemented in the DDP systematically exacerbate those undercounts. Beginning with a basic plot of population identifying solely as AIAN and comparing the 2010 DDP against the original 2010 Census tabulations with each point being an AIAN reservation or tribal land, Akee noted that the deviations from the 45-degree equality line looked small, but this visual effect was amplified by the presence of the major outlier presented by the Navajo Nation, the population of which (150,000) is markedly larger than any other (the median AIAN-alone population across reservations being about 8,000). Restricting attention to reservations with populations of 5,000 or less, the pattern becomes clear and is put in even starker relief in Figure 8.1, which plots the difference between the AIAN-alone estimate

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Image
Figure 8.1 Population change in the American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) populations on AIAN reservations between 2010 Census published data and 2010 Demonstration Data Products, by size of AIAN-alone population in the 2010 Census.
NOTE: Graph omits reservations with populations greater than 5,000 (i.e., the Navajo Nation). DP, differential privacy, so that “2010 Census with DP” refers to the 2010 Demonstration Data Products.

SOURCE: Randall Akee workshop presentation.

between 2010 Census tabulations and the 2010 DDP. Virtually all of the points for those small-sized reservations and tribal lands lie below the zero line, and many are fairly close to 0 (small deviations) but systematically low. Akee replicated the results, broadening the population group in question to include those whose race was recorded as AIAN alone or in combination with other race categories, with similar results applying.

To get a sense of the effect of the level of geographic aggregation, Akee performed similar analysis for the AIAN-alone population in congressional districts. With those larger units, the 2010 Census tables and the 2010 DDP appear to come closer to the equality, 45-degree line. Even restricting attention to “smaller” congressional districts, in this case those with AIAN-alone populations less than 25,000, the correspondence is generally good. In his remarks, Akee described this as being consistent with other presentations about the superior performance for on-spine geographies, appearing to suggest that congressional districts are an on-spine geography when they are not. (They can, on the other hand, be fairly be said to be closer to the spine in that they are

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Image
Figure 8.2 Change in American Indian and Alaska Native-alone population between 2010 Census published data and 2010 Demonstration Data Products in California census tracts.
SOURCE: Randall Akee workshop presentation.

more likely to be comprised of higher-level aggregates like counties rather than strictly finest-level blocks.)

Akee drilled down to tribes in Arizona and Washington State. Essentially all tribes in Arizona had an undercount in the DDP data compared with the original 2010 data of as much as 50 percent. Only the Hopi tribe had an overcount. Tribes in Washington State showed a little more variation, but most tribes had an undercount in the DDP data. Akee drilled down further

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

to look at census tracts on American Indian reservations in California. Almost all the observations except for very few were below the diagonal (that is, the DDP data were consistently lower than the original 2010 data), some quite far below. These differences are made clearer in the scatterplots in Figure 8.2, showing the systematically-lower-in-DDP estimates for on-reservation tracts in California. The effect is somewhat balanced out looking at all tracts in the state (not just those on reservations) but still prominent. Akee further cautioned that California’s reservations and tribal lands tend to be smaller in population than those elsewhere in the nation, meaning that the seemingly small estimate discrepancies can represent large percentages for those communities.

8.1.2 Differences for Alaska Natives in Villages

Similar to his findings for American Indians on reservations, small Alaska Native villages (below 4,000 people) tended to have an undercount in the DDP data compared with the 2010 original data. Undercounts were particularly pronounced for villages with fewer than 1,000 people, which are most of the villages. This result was concerning because tribal governmental units rely on census data for many uses.

8.1.3 Differences for Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders (NHOPI)

While there are not as many Native Hawaiian homelands as there are tribal reservations, they are all in the State of Hawaii, which is a relatively small place. Again, the DDP generally produced an undercount compared with the original 2010 data, whether or not Other Pacific Islanders were included in with Native Hawaiians.

8.1.4 Concluding Comments

Akee noted that the choice of ϵ was a policy decision. He agreed with others that it would be useful to see multiple iterations of ϵ imposed on the data because that would allow users to evaluate the trade-offs between data accuracy and privacy protection and recommend an acceptable trade-off.

Akee urged that the choice of ϵ be discussed with tribal governments. Because of their small populations, they are at considerable risk of having privacy loss, yet the benefits of accurate data might outweigh the loss of privacy in their thinking.

Akee wondered what happened to the missing (or undercounted) AIAN people in the DDP. It appeared that they were being transformed into other race and ethnic groups, which would change the racial and ethnic composition of the areas around reservations and native villages. Tribal governments would likely find this concerning.

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

Akee wondered how much of the privacy budget for the 2020 Census would be reserved for future research using census data other than those released in the data products. For example, there might be congressional or federal agency mandates for research using the confidential data linked with administrative data across time and space for such purposes as evaluating the effectiveness of Indian Health Service or housing programs in certain communities. Once the privacy budget is exhausted, Akee understood that no further data products could be released until the raw data were turned over to the National Archives in 72 years. Akee believed that the relevant communities needed to discuss how the privacy budget would be allocated, whether the funds ultimately went to congressionally mandated research, agency research, state and local government research, or academic research. Akee asked who would get priority.

Finally, Akee wondered about Puerto Rico and the outlying territories, such as Guam and American Samoa. Would they be allocated some of the overall 2020 privacy-loss budget? If not, why not? If so, how much? Akee hoped these conversations would be held.

8.2 IMPACT OF DIFFERENTIAL PRIVACY ON AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE TRIBES

Norman DeWeaver (independent consultant) said he had been studying and using American Indian and Alaska Native data since the 1980s, working with staff from tribal governments and organizations and Alaska Native organizations at the nitty-gritty level. DeWeaver wanted to address how census data had a real-world effect in terms of the allocation of federal funds to Indian tribes and Alaska Native organizations for several key programs.

8.2.1 Background

DeWeaver noted the unique status of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments within the United States governmental system. They are sovereign governments and have been since the times when they developed treaties with the United States government (or, rather, had the treaties forced upon them). They have a government-to-government relationship with the U.S. federal government and its agencies, including the Census Bureau. The federal agencies, in turn, have a trust responsibility to those governments and to the people that they represent.

Most tribal governments preside over very small geographic areas, not from choice—their traditional homelands were once much larger—but because the federal government set through treaties and executive orders the size of those communities. In many cases, once the reservation size was originally set, it was reduced as time went along, as there was more pressure to open up land to settlement by non-Indians. As a result, nearly 53 percent of federal reservations

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

had AIAN-alone populations in the 2010 released products of 500 people or less. Over 78 percent of the Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas had AIAN-alone populations in 2010 of 500 people or less.

In its attempt to stimulate participation in the 2010 Census by Indian tribes and Alaska Native populations, the Census Bureau and its partners emphasized responding to the census because it would provide power for native people. This means power that arises from redistricting and the federal programs that fund Indian tribes and organizations and Alaska Native organizations using formulas which depend in part on decennial census data.

One funding stream is provided by the Tribal Transportation Programs (TTP), which the Federal Highway Administration has the Bureau of Indian Affairs administer. Many reservations do not have paved roads or public transit and lack funding for road maintenance. TTP programs address all those needs. Another major funding stream, the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is for Indian housing construction and rehabilitation.

8.2.2 Comparisons of 2010 Summary File 1 and the Demonstration Data Products

DeWeaver showed there were big differences in total counts for AIAN-alone populations between the 2010 Summary File 1 (SF1) and the DDP. For reservations with populations of 500 and over, the median difference in the counts was only 4 percent. For reservations with populations of 1 to 499, the median difference was 52 percent, with undercounts in many reservations. The Indian housing formula uses the same basic census numbers and so would be affected by implementation of differential privacy. The same kinds of differences, although less pronounced, occurred with Alaska tribes in villages. The median percentage difference for villages below 500 people was 3 times the median percentage difference for the larger villages (9 percent versus 3 percent, respectively).

DeWeaver also looked at age by sex data for the AIAN-alone population in Washington State, which has some large reservations and some small ones. For childcare and child development programs for the 12 reservations with an AIAN-alone population, most of which are in western Washington, the counts in the DDP were down by 50 percent for the relevant age range. For programs for the elderly, the counts for smaller reservations were down 33 percent for tribes that received funding from Title 6 of the Older Americans Act.

DeWeaver observed that the Census Bureau had been making the largest effort ever for 2020 to encourage tribes to partner with the Census Bureau to obtain an accurate count of the populations on reservations and native villages. He asked what the reaction would be if the 2020 Census were to provide inaccurate and lower counts of their population. There is already a serious trust

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

problem among AIAN people when it comes to federal agencies and federal data collection, which showed up very dramatically in some of the focus groups in the CBAMS (Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study). Such a result would be a breach of faith with long-term effects on the willingness of tribes and organizations to promote future census data collection.

8.2.3 Suggested Solutions

DeWeaver suggested that one possible solution was to allocate a major portion of the data-privacy budget to smaller populations in small areas. The concerning results he saw in the DDP for AIAN communities also affected small communities with high clusters of other racial and ethnic groups.

Another idea would be to change the funding allocation system and the formulas for the Indian housing and transportation programs. This would not be a small matter, however. The process to change a formula, which DeWeaver had experienced working with the U.S. Department of Labor, would involve extensive consultations with relevant constituencies and approval by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. It would also be very difficult to make changes in legislation that specified the funding allocation formula and process. DeWeaver concluded that changing the funding allocation system was a very distant solution.

DeWeaver’s favorite solution was to fund tribes and Alaska Native organizations to do their own data organization, tabulation, and analysis in order to produce reliable estimates for their own planning and allocation of services. This idea would accord with the principle of data sovereignty on the part of tribes, a movement being promoted in particular by the Native Nations Institute at the University of Arizona. Such a program would resemble the old Section 701 Program, funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

8.3 FLOOR DISCUSSION

Gwynne Evans-Lomayesva (National Congress of American Indians) thanked the presenters and said that their results, especially as it related to the effects of differential privacy on data used in funding formulas, was a cause for concern. She wondered about the impact on equity. DeWeaver answered that the special responsibility the federal government has to the AIAN population acted as a safeguard for equity. The federal government had taken Indian land and by various devices helped to reduce the AIAN population. In turn, it had made a promise to provide assistance to AIAN people. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this as a solemn responsibility in a case involving the Seminole Nation in Florida. Akee added that equity was an important concern in addition to data accuracy and availability and privacy protection. Certain groups appeared

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

to be at high risk for being adversely affected by the application of differential privacy methods, and for these groups, the census data were the only game in town. Census data matter, not only for AIAN, but also the homeless, the undocumented population, and other small racial, ethnic, and geographic groups.

James Tucker (Native American Rights Fund) observed that Alaska Native villages have high poverty rates, so if they were underestimated due to differential privacy, they could lose important federal funding. Tucker asked if the census data provided to federal agencies for funding decisions could be based on the actual numbers so that these communities would not be negatively affected. Snipp said this was ultimately a decision for the Census Bureau to make. Up until now, federal agencies received the data with swapping for privacy protection, and there was no access to the detailed edited file. Snipp asked Census Bureau senior management to comment. Ron Jarmin (deputy director, U.S. Census Bureau) said that the Census Bureau did not have an answer to Tucker’s question right now. The Census Bureau was considering how to address the issue of tribal lands and differential privacy and would definitely be in discussions with AIAN groups.

Matthew Berman (University of Alaska Anchorage) thanked the presenters and said that in his own work, he too observed the large undercount in the DDP for the AIAN population. He inferred that this result had been obtained because the TopDown algorithm (TDA) could not make the noisy AIAN population exceed the noisy total population. Consequently, in communities that were 80 to 90 percent Alaska Native, the algorithm was going to drive that down to about 70 to 80 percent. Yet at the lower end, there was also error because of not being able to generate negative populations. As an illustration, there were some Alaska Native Statistical Areas that everyone knew had been uninhabited for years, decades in fact, but there were still housing units there because people used them seasonally for fishing camps. The TDA made the housing unit count invariant, so it allocated people to those communities with the result of showing perhaps 10 to 20 people in communities that everyone knew were uninhabited.

Berman said that people on small reservations and native villages knew how many people were there. If the 2020 Census published a number that was not credible given local knowledge, then the people might well decline to use the census numbers and instead try to fund their own surveys in order to produce credible numbers. Not every reservation or village would have the necessary resources, however, thereby raising an equity question. Berman said that he would like the Census Bureau to consider the equity issue posed by populations that were organized with constituencies with wealth and resources who could generate data on their own. Such groups could achieve a more equitable allocation of funds and political representation, but populations that were not able to go this road would be disadvantaged. Berman also commented

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

that he would also like to move the discussion away from how one would allocate the privacy budget among different tables at a given level of ϵ. Instead, he preferred to ask what would be the minimum level of accuracy required for a published number to be credible and usable, perhaps within 10 percent of the real number. Given such a metric, one could be honest in saying what would be possible to produce with a minimal level of accuracy and what would not be possible with a given ϵ. Such information would make people aware in advance of what data they could expect from the 2020 Census.

In reply, DeWeaver said that Berman’s questions raised a related issue, namely the question of whether the Census Bureau had considered the implications for its Count Question Resolution (CQR) program. If in fact the Census Bureau reported no people in a given area, a given Alaska Native village for instance, and there clearly were people living there, and the village produced pictures with the houses there and the people there, how would that be treated during CQR?

Nancy Krieger (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health) said the focus on off-spine areas such as AIAN reservations and villages, made sense given the concerns around sovereignty. But she was aware from her colleagues working on indigenous health and health inequities that there were many AIAN living in on-spine localities and wondered about the quality of data for them. Akee said the short answer was that he had not a chance to look into that.

Simson Garfinkel (U.S. Census Bureau) asked about the privacy requirements of the Native American community. If some organization were to publish a complete tribal roster, with addresses and ages, would that be okay? DeWeaver agreed that privacy was an important issue to which data junkies tended perhaps not to pay enough attention. It intrigued him that the Census Bureau’s justification for introducing differential privacy and moving beyond the privacy disclosure procedures that were used in previous censuses was the availability of commercial databases for reconstructing individual records. However, the AIAN population does not often have access to computers or the Internet and so would not likely generate records in such databases.

Garfinkel countered that he would like to make a correction: the information that was published in the 2010 Census data products was the only information required to do an accurate reconstruction of the majority of the population. The commercial records allowed one to put names onto the reconstructed records. But the reconstruction provided, more accurate than not, a list of every person per block, their age, their sex, and their race. DeWeaver said he appreciated the comment but wondered how people without access to a computer or the Internet would get into the commercial databases. danah boyd (Data & Society) said that there were tools other than commercial databases that could be used to reidentify individuals, such as databases for criminal offenses or convictions, bankruptcies, debts, marriage

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

licenses, electronic purchases, gambling, and the like. Unfortunately, things like criminal records disproportionately affect AIAN communities.

Akee said the original question was the acceptable level of privacy loss, which he thought should be put to tribal governments themselves. There are over 500 of these sovereign entities that make decisions for their own populations, so that was where the question needed to be engaged. Would they be comfortable with their entire population being enumerated publicly? Some might be and others not. They must be engaged, and that was what the National Congress for American Indians has undertaken to do in collaboration with the Census Bureau. He applauded the release of the 2010 DDP as a good way of launching fuller engagement so that tribal nations could determine where they wanted to be on the privacy-versus-utility continuum.

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"8 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: American Indians and Alaska Natives." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. 2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25978.
×
Page 108
Next: 9 Identification of Rural and Special Populations: Small Communities, the Young, and the Elderly »
2020 Census Data Products: Data Needs and Privacy Considerations: Proceedings of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $60.00 Buy Ebook | $48.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a 2-day public workshop from December 11-12, 2019, to discuss the suite of data products the Census Bureau will generate from the 2020 Census. The workshop featured presentations by users of decennial census data products to help the Census Bureau better understand the uses of the data products and the importance of these uses and help inform the Census Bureau's decisions on the final specification of 2020 data products. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussion of the workshop.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!