The 2000 Census Counting Under Adversity (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
6 The 2000 Coverage Evaluation Program
6 The 2000 Coverage Evaluation Program
Pages 185-268
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 185... ...
At the joint panel meeting Census Bureau officials announcer! the Bureau's recommendation, accepted!
|
From page 186... ...
Given these technical concerns, the Census Bureau has concluded that the A.C.E. Revision II estimates should not be used to change the base for intercensal population estimates.
|
From page 187... ...
and weighted to population totals, and (2) the correct enumeration rate, or the rate at which census enumerations in the sampler!
|
From page 188... ...
In contrast, the higher the correct enumeration rate, the higher will be the DSE population estimate ant! the estimates!
|
From page 189... ...
correct enumerations in surrounding blocks more narrowly in the A.C.E. than in the PES was originally suspected!
|
From page 190... ...
in a P-sample housing unit on Census Day ant!
|
From page 191... ...
P-sample concluctec! by the Census Bureau in summer 2001 supporter!
|
From page 192... ...
. Using a range of correct enumeration rates for the unresolved!
|
From page 193... ...
households as of Census Day that were successfully interviewee!
|
From page 194... ...
it was not always possible to interview a neighbor or lancIlorc! who was knowledgeable about the Census Day residents.
|
From page 195... ...
Psample match rate, the estimates! E-sample correct enumeration rate, or both rates.
|
From page 196... ...
P-sample imputation rates includes nonmovers, inmovers, and outmovers, including people who were subsequently removed from the sample as nonresidents on Census Day. Excluded from the base for the A.C.E.
|
From page 197... ...
. After imputation the percentage of Census Day residents among the original Census Day P-sample dropped slightly from 98.2 percent of resolved cases to 97.9 per
|
From page 198... ...
residence status; confirmed! non-Census Day residents were dropped from the P-sample at this point.
|
From page 199... ...
E-sample correct enumeration status probabilities could have a consiclerable effect on the estimates! value of the DSE for the national household population, particularly when combiner!
|
From page 200... ...
Person Duplication Studies concluctec! by the Census Bureau in summer 2001 proviclec!
|
From page 201... ...
when parents' household is not in the P-sample: E-sample follow-up of nonmatched household should classify the parents as correct enumerations and the student as an "erroneous enumeration, other residence" (i.e., should have been enumerated at the college location only)
|
From page 202... ...
was to overstate the correct enumeration rate, understate the match rate, ant! overstate the DSE estimate of the population by 1 .
|
From page 203... ...
.9 Gross ant! net difference rates for classification of E-sample cases (correct enumeration, erroneous enumeration, unresolved)
|
From page 204... ...
The effect of matching error on the ratio of the match rate to the correct enumeration rate resulted! in an overstatement of the 2000 DSE total population estimate by about 0.5 million people (Bean, 2001:20)
|
From page 205... ...
was methoclologically more complex than the corresponding operation in the 1990 PES. At the time of the decision not to use the original DSE estimates of the population to adjust census data for redistricting in March 2001, the Census Bureau cites!
|
From page 206... ...
contribute to the P-sample match rate for the 18- to 29-year-oicl poststrata and to the E-sample correct enumeration rate for the 30- to 49-year-oIc! poststrata.
|
From page 207... ...
The Census Bureau also analyzed 1990 data to determine the original A.C.E. posts/ratification (Haines, l999a,b)
|
From page 208... ...
Person Duplication Studies of substantial underestimation of duplicate ant! other census erroneous enumerations ant!
|
From page 209... ...
coverage error (see Table 6.3~. 6-B.1 Reestimation of Erroneous Census Enumerations A major concern of Census Bureau staff in reviewing the original March 2001 A.C.E.
|
From page 212... ...
to measure about 1.5 million erroneous census enumerations. (This esiiAll numbers and percentages are weighted to the household population.
|
From page 213... ...
failed to measure 2 million erroneous census enumerations (slightly higher than the EFU estimate)
|
From page 214... ...
6.4 million census enumerations (2.4 percent of the total weighted! Esample; see Krejsa ant!
|
From page 215... ...
Census Bureau (2003c:524. In total, the Further Study of Person Duplication estimates!
|
From page 216... ...
estimates, were still an underestimate of cluplication in the census. Estimating Correct Census Enumerations in Revision II For the Revision II estimates of correct census enumerations to include in the DSE formula, the Census Bureau user!
|
From page 217... ...
The Revision II estimation clic! take account of measurement errors in the P-sample, using results from a reanalysis of the Evaluation Follow-Up Study and from the Further Study of Person Duplication (see Section 6i3From tabulations by panel staff (see National Research Council, 2001a:Table 7-5)
|
From page 218... ...
follow-up interview.~4 The purpose of the original EFU ant! the reanalysis for P-sample cases was to determine their residence status on Census Day; if they were not Census Day residents then they click not belong in the P-sample for estimating the match rate component of the DSE formula (see Section 6-A.3~.
|
From page 219... ...
For original P-sample resident nonmovers, the Further Study of Person Duplication fount! links for 5.4 million cases to census enumerations outside the A.C.E.
|
From page 220... ...
to census enumerations outside the search area was performer! using the Further Study of Person Duplication P-sample component in a manner similar to that described for the E-sample in Section 6-B.1.
|
From page 221... ...
in Section 6-B.1 (see also U.S. Census Bureau, 2003c:584.
|
From page 222... ...
Generally, these cases hac! Tow correct enumeration rates (average 60 percent.
|
From page 223... ...
net overcounts of their population (5 percent or more see U.S. Census Bureau, 2003c:Table 104.
|
From page 224... ...
the estimates! correct enumeration rate, while the correction for cluplication of P-sample nonmover resident cases with census enumerations outside the search area increaser!
|
From page 225... ...
Hence, the Bureau macle an adjustment for correlation bias, based on sex ratios from demographic analysis. Assuming that the DSE estimates for females were correct, the P-sample match rates were recomputed for black mates ages 18-29, 30-49, and 50 and over, and all other mates ages 30-49 and 50 and over (U.S.
|
From page 226... ...
Revision II effort for major population groups. They are: a table of correct enumeration rates (Table 6.54; a table of match rates (Table 6.6)
|
From page 227... ...
correct enumeration rates by race/ethnicity and housing tenure group from table provided by the U.S. Census Bureau to the panel, May 22, 2003; total Revision II correct enumeration rate from Fenstermaker (2002:Table 9)
|
From page 228... ...
C Owner 92.34 92.66 92.32 93.71 Renter 87.33 87.37 87.07 84.36 White and Other Races (Non-Hispanic) Owner 94.60 95.02 94.63 95.64 Renter 88.37 88.43 88.14 88.62 Total 91.59 91.76 91.19 92.22 NOTES: Match rates are matches divided by the sum of matches and nonmatches; census inclusion rates are match rates adjusted for correlation bias for adult males using sex ratios from demographic analysis (see U.S.
|
From page 229... ...
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (2003c:Table 1)
|
From page 230... ...
Net Undercount Rates Net unclercount rates show substantial changes comparing the A.C.E. Revision II estimates with the original March 2001 A.C.E.
|
From page 231... ...
the use of geographic variables in preference to such variables as age, sex, race, ant! housing tenure (see, e.g., Griffin ant!
|
From page 232... ...
the net unclercount rate by about 1 percentage point for each group shown, ant! the correction for duplications of P-sample nonmover residents with census enumerations outside the A.C.E.
|
From page 234... ...
to estimate the contribution to correct enumerations from E-sample cases with cluplicate links; error in demographic analysis sex ratios; or error in the moclel user! to estimate correlation bias from these sex ratios (see U.S.
|
From page 235... ...
6-C FACTORS IN COVERAGE Two factors merit discussion for the role they played in producing an estimated net overcount in the 2000 census. They are computer-based, whole-person census imputations and duplicate census enumerations.
|
From page 236... ...
hac! artificially low match rates, but once the IIs were aciclec!
|
From page 237... ...
For example, geographic analysis of types of whole-person imputations for census tracts conducted by panel staff revealed considerable clustering of some imputation types by geographic area.18 In particular, type 5 imputations, in which status as a housing unit had to be imputed first, followed by imputation of occupancy status, household size, and, finally, household member characteristics, were heavily clustered in rural list/enumerate areas, such as Adirondacks region of New York State and parts of Arizona and New Mexico. Although there were only 415,000 type 5 imputations nationwide (0.2 percent of the household population)
|
From page 240... ...
and that probably contributed to overimputation of households for which occupancy status was not known (type 4 imputations; see Section 4-D.2~. 6-C.2 Duplicate Census Enumerations The 2000 census incluclec!
|
From page 241... ...
that it unclerestimatec! cluplicate census enumerations.
|
From page 242... ...
242 in .
|
From page 243... ...
at those locations, accorcling to Census Bureau rules, but they were also reporter! by their families back home, counter to the instructions on the questionnaire.
|
From page 244... ...
Coverage Evaluation Program, the Census Bureau commenciably cleclicatec! the staff ant!
|
From page 245... ...
The identification of potential weaknesses in Revision II exemplifies the Census Bureau's praiseworthy thoroughness of clocumentation and explanation for every step of the effort. Complete clocumentation was preparer!
|
From page 246... ...
to census enumerations outside the A.C.E. search area, which reclucec!
|
From page 247... ...
for the PES. The correlation bias adjustments might be similar, given that sex ratios were similar for most groups in 1990 ant!
|
From page 248... ...
lower net unclercount rates than the PES despite similar match ant! correct enumeration rates.
|
From page 249... ...
of the clistribution, a group of nine states in the South ant! West were not only in the quartile with estimated net unclercount rates or the lowest net overcount rates in 2000 (below 0.1 percent net overcount)
|
From page 250... ...
Census Bureau, 2003c:42~. The Revision II Toss function analysis was greatly improved over the analysis conducted for the original A.C.E.
|
From page 251... ...
net overcount rates for some small places to the presence of proportionately larger numbers of proxy census enumerations in these places. Proxy enumeration poststrata hac!
|
From page 252... ...
6-D.6 Gross Coverage Errors Although coverage correction factors for adjustment are baser! on estimated net error rates, components of gross error that is, types of census omissions ant!
|
From page 253... ...
15.S million census omissions. By comparison, the PES estimated 36.6 million gross errors of all types, inclucling 16.3 million erroneous census enumerations ant!
|
From page 254... ...
Revision II. 6-D.S March 2003 Decision Not to Adjust Base for Postcensal Estimates The Census Bureau cleciclec!
|
From page 255... ...
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (2003c:Tables 13, 14)
|
From page 256... ...
Similarly, it was not possible to determine whether the P-sample case in a pair of cluplicates involving a census enumeration outside the A.C.E. search area in the P-sample component of the Further Study of Person Duplication was correct or whether the census enumeration was correct anal, consequently, the P-sample case was a nonresident and shouIcl be dropped from the sample.
|
From page 257... ...
the Census Bureau from making correlation bias adjustments for groups other than those clefinec!
|
From page 258... ...
6-D.9 Revision II Coverage Evaluation Findings See also Section 6-A.ll. Finding 6.2: The Census Bureau commendably cleclicatec!
|
From page 259... ...
Finding 6.3: We support the Census Bureau's decision not to use the March 2003 Revision II A.C.E. coverage measurement results to adjust the 2000 census base counts for the Bureau's postcensal population estimates program.
|
From page 260... ...
census omissions. In aciclition, there is a large discrepancy in coverage estimates for children ages 0-9 when comparing demographic analysis estimates with Revision II A.C.E.
|
From page 261... ...
In particular, clifferences between the census counts, the original A.C.E., ant! the original demographic analysis estimates spurred the clevelopment of innovative methods for identifying duplicate census enumerations.
|
From page 262... ...
We see possibilities for improvements in many areas, such as the estimation of components of gross census error as well as net error, expansion of the search area for erroneous census enumerations ant! P-sample nonresidents, the inclusion of group quarters residents, better communication to respondents of resiclence rules (anc!
|
From page 263... ...
The nationwide matching technology together with the possible increased use of administrative records for group quarters enumeration, could make it possible to include group quarters residents in the 2010 A.C.E. with an acceptable level of data quality.
|
From page 264... ...
reported that the Census Bureau "obligatecl about
|
From page 265... ...
Recommendation 6.1: The Census Bureau and administration should request, and Congress should provide, funding for the development and implementation of an improved Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Program for the 2010 census. Such a program is essential to identify census omissions and erroneous enumerations and to provide the basis for adjusting the census counts for coverage errors should that be warranted.
|
From page 266... ...
Recommendation 6.2: The Census Bureau should strengthen its program to improve demographic analysis estimates, in concert with other statistical agencies that use and provide data inputs to the postcensal population estimates. Work should focus especially on improving estimates of net immigration.
|
From page 267... ...
Consequently, the panel believes that adequate evaluation of the census block-level data for congressional redistricting is not possible by the current cleacIline of 12 months after Census Day. The Congress should consider changing this cleacIline to provide aciclitional time for evaluation ant!
|
From page 268... ...
.i (An analysis commissioned by the Census Bureau used these tabulations; see Schneider, 2003.) The panel also compared the consistency of basic characteristics for people in the census-based E-sample who matched cases in the independent P-sample of the 2000 Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.