Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

7 Nonhousehold Enumeration
Pages 225-248

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 225...
... We have discussed conceptual aspects of residence data collection from the nonhousehold population in Chapter 3; in this chapter, we describe operational improvements to nonhousehold enumeration and the research needed to attain them. It is important to get group quarters enumeration right in the decennial census, not only because of the consequent problems of omission and duplication, but also because the decennial census is currently the only comprehensive data source on this segment of the population.
From page 226...
... These group quarters discrepancies account for a large fraction of the population counts that local jurisdictions challenged in the Census Bureau's Count Question Resolution Program.1 Of these discrepancies, the highest-profile case arose when the Census Bureau acknowledged that 2,696 students at the University of North Car 1Though the Count Question Resolution Program could result in the Census Bureau issuing an errata statement and a certificate of revised population, a condition of the program was that the revised counts could not be used for apportionment or redistricting.
From page 227...
... Government Accountability Office (2005:34) notes that -- as part of the Count Question Resolution process in the North Carolina case -- the Bureau concluded that "a similar issue was not problematic elsewhere in the country" on the strength of a search for the text string "dorm" in the address field of the decennial census MAF.
From page 228...
... However, in the absence of estimates of omissions and erroneous enumerations in group quarters settings, the 2000 census plan did not include any systematic or comprehensive review of the coverage in group quarters, whether through rigorous comparison with facility or administrative records or through structured observational studies. Design choices in the Bureau's Non-ID Process -- the procedure by which the Bureau processed all census forms without a MAF identification number, including "Be Counted" forms and all group quarters forms indicating a "usual home elsewhere" -- also led to a major lost opportunity for understanding residence reporting problems.
From page 229...
... NONHOUSEHOLD ENUMERATION 229 -f p 279 sel those mber grous Nu 669,702 415,205 216,403 122,291 were 2,028,150 1,930,233 1,707,039 7,089,302 ou gii they a represents rel 6.7 24.0 7.1 10.1 15.1 15.6 17.5 19.7 12.5 that es, tori Census nknown catei U category ndi ormid 2000 to 5.5 4.4 ts, ew 15.1 23.3 16.0 9.8 9.9 5.7 10.0 work merator forms nknown" "us deu Repor Enu Intervi arters qu Thi.y ncli ve p 30.2 56.3 72.8 41.3 59.5 65.8 48.8 37.6 51.7 vel arters" Census strati grou qu ni p of respecti dmi e. grou A Records back es, mad Individual the entri "other 57.5 15.3 5.0 25.3 9.4 8.8 23.8 36.9 25.8 on was -f ercentP Sel Response boxa record entry tchens; Quarters ni ve di ki p b 3 or strati nvali sou arters 2, ni an Group qu 1,a admi or and s.
From page 230...
... In principle, these group quarters questionnaires were supposed to be twice-filtered before Non-ID Process clerks geocoded the records and attempted to find matches on the MAF -- first to determine if the Bureau considered the particular group quarters type in question as eligible for a "usual home elsewhere" and second on the basis of the response to a screening question on the form ("Do you have a place where you live or stay MOST OF THE TIME?
From page 231...
... NONHOUSEHOLD ENUMERATION 231 or ormF otalT ew 892,742 48,536 388,970 659,566 tchens form, by 2,941,278 1, 1,0 ki 3-1. p ntervii on 0 an Box sou ectil Process CRsS at gh see 69,801 69,801 2,763 col 67,038 oni throu atad CRs)
From page 232...
... Failure to Unduplicate Within the Group Quarters Population Some group quarters residents were mailed a housing unit questionnaire. If they returned it and the address was matched to a group quarters address, they were added to the appropriate group quarters count, but there was no provision to unduplicate such enumerations with enumerations obtained through the group quarters enumeration procedure.
From page 233...
... to provide a more substantive split in the usual "group quarters" population. In 1980, enumerators assigned to group quarters were instructed to transcribe information from ICRs onto census short or long forms as appropriate, using "CENSUS USE ONLY" boxes on the form to indicate
From page 234...
... People living in group quarters are usually not related to each other. Group quarters include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, workers' dormitories, and facilities for people experiencing homelessness.
From page 235...
... This category may include privately operated correctional facilities. Group Homes and Residential Treatment Centers for Adults 5.
From page 236...
... 17. Soup Kitchens, Regularly Scheduled Mobile Food Vans, and Targeted Nonsheltered Outdoor Locations: Includes soup kitchens that offer meals organized as food service lines or bag or box lunches; street locations where mobile food vans regularly stop to provide food to people experiencing homelessness; and targeted nonsheltered outdoor locations where people experiencing homelessness live without paying to stay.
From page 237...
... 20. Workers' Group Living Quarters and Job Corps Centers: Includes facilities such as dormitories, bunkhouses, and similar types of group living arrangements for agricultural and nonagricultural workers.
From page 238...
... As with the main household population, the physical collection of ARE data from nonhousehold respondents in 2010 is certainly feasible; indeed, "usual home elsewhere" (UHE) was asked on all group quarters ICRs in 2000, but only deemed valid for specific group quarters types.
From page 239...
... during the conduct of the 2000 census usefully highlights these varying levels of participation, commenting on the group quarters enumeration at three Seattle-area universities. One university participated fully, providing comprehensive lists of university housing (including fraternity and sorority houses and student apartments)
From page 240...
... Because administrative and facility records have been, and will almost certainly continue to be, a major source of data on the nonhousehold population, it is imperative that the Census Bureau undertake a continuing research effort to assess the accessibility of facility records at group quarters facilities and to determine whether the existing data systems meet census data collection needs. In a sense, what we envision is analogous to the development of the Census Bureau's MAF.
From page 241...
... The Census Bureau should also develop a spreadsheet-type ledger form that reflects the real ity that some "responses" will have to be obtained from facility administrative records or a central "gatekeeper." These custom nonhousehold forms should include ARE queries and other relevant data items, such as time spent at the location and expected length of stay. The precise tailoring of census forms for the nonhousehold population is arguably more of an issue for the ACS than the short-form-only 2010 census.
From page 242...
... Finding 7.3: Major growth in the prison population, accompanied by expansion in the number of correctional facilities maintained by the federal government and the states, has prompted challenges to the Census Bureau's "usual residence" standard regarding the counting of the incarcerated population. Our guidance on how the prisoner population should be counted in the census is consistent with both our recommendation of a core set of residence principles and our proposal to broadly change group quarters enumeration.
From page 243...
... Our principles hold that determination of usual residence should be made at the level of the individual; this would mean that persons in prison need not have their residency fixed solely by virtue of their location in a structure identified as a prison. Using the panel's recommended question-based approach and revised nonhousehold enumeration operations, the census could obtain individual-level information on time spent in prison and expected date of release.
From page 244...
... The quality of these data resources is not well known, and this creates the critical research need -- determining how well corrections department data sources match the information that can be gathered on a Census Bureau questionnaire. The necessity for reliance on administrative and facility records accentuates a critical flaw in the argument for an immediate change in prisoner counting policy: the alternative to counting prisoners at a place other than prison is not well defined.
From page 245...
... conjecture that about 20 percent of the prison population would not have addresses that are "meaningful, accurate, available, and verifiable," and that procedures for counting the other 80 percent should not be unduly impeded by these "exceptional" populations.8 Assessment of these ideas requires gathering actual data such as through an experiment in 2010, as we recommend. The base residence information contained in state corrections department databases -- and even the format of the data -- is not well known.
From page 246...
... For the remaining 20 states, it is not clear what information would be available from administrative records save perhaps for court records from time of sentencing, which would suffer as a measure of the "current" prison population. The evidence of political inequities in redistricting that can arise due to the counting of prisoners at the prison location is compelling.
From page 247...
... , and indicated that the apportionment is to be done by modifying figures from the U.S. decennial census.
From page 248...
... 248 ONCE, ONLY ONCE, AND IN THE RIGHT PLACE With prisoner counts at the time of redistricting, state redistricting bodies would then have the capacity to decide whether to include or exclude prisoners from proposed districts. The states' interest in having such a separate prisoner count should be assessed by the Bureau as part of its work with state officials to determine the layout of the standard P.L.


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.