Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Chapter 8 Invited Session on Confidentiality
Pages 235-276

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 235...
... Record Linkage Techniques- 1997 ~q ,[ Fit it Invited Session on Confidentiaiity Chair: Laura Zayatz, Bureau of the Census Authors: Eleanor Singer and John VanHoewyk, University of Michigan and Stanley Presser, University of Maryland Arthur B Kennickell, Federal Reserve Board Katherine K Wallman and Jerry L
From page 237...
... Some of the reasons for record linkage have to do with more efficient and more economical data collection, Tiers with a desire to reduce the burden on respondents, and still others with a need to improve coverage of Be population end the qualibr ofthe infonnat~on obtained.
From page 238...
... The survey asked questions designed to probe the public's understanding of He Census Bureau's pledge of confidentiality and their confidence in that pledge. It also asked how respondents felt about He Census Bureau's obtaining some information from Her government agencies ~ order to imp rove the decennial count or to reduce its cost.
From page 239...
... among 22 questions asked about We Census Bureau on both surveys. First, there is more awareness of the fact that census data are used to apportion Congress and as a basis for providing aid to communities; but second, Were is less awareness that some people are sent the long census form instead of the short form.
From page 240...
... The question about SSN was asked after the series of questions asking whether or not people approved of other administrative agencies sharing data with the Census Bureau. Therefore, it is reasonable to 240 ~
From page 241...
... ~ Willingness to Provide SSN and Attitudes to Census Bureau I Would Not Provide SSN | Would Provide SSN l Attitude/Opinion % % Believes counting population is "extremely" or 63.8 79.7 "very" important Is aware of census uses 43.1 54.8 Would favor SSA giving Census Bureau short- 56.3 85.0 form information Would favor IRS giving Census Bureau long-form 30.4 61.2 information Would favor "records-only" census 45.6 60.0 Trusts Bureau to not give out/keep confidential 45.0 76.7 census responses Would be bothered "a lot" if other agency got cen- 54.1 29.9 sus responses Believes benefits of record sharing outweigh pri- 36.0 51.1 vacy loss Believes the five items on short form are invasion 31.3 13.4 of privacy I There are also significant relationships between political efficacy, feelings that rights to privacy are well protected, feelings that people have lost control over personal information, and trust in "~e government in Washington to do what is right" (Q24a~) and willingness to provide one's SSN.
From page 242...
... Second{, however, is a set of beliefs and attitudes concerning privacy, confidentiality, and trust: People who are more concemed about privacy, who have less trust In the Bureau's maintenance of confidentiality, and who are less trusting of government In general are much less likely to say Hey would provide Heir SSN to He Census Bureau. Women are more likely to be concerned about privacy issues Can men, and they are also less willing to say they would provide their SSN to the Bureau.
From page 243...
... The most important of these, from Be perspective of understanding data sharing attitudes, had to do wad He meaning of the Census Bureau's assurance of data confidentiality to respondents. The short answer to He question, "What does a~nfidentiali:ty mean to He public?
From page 244...
... One asked whiner Me Census Bureau was required by law to keep census information confidential; the over, whether Me Bureau was forbidden by law from giv~ng identified census information to over agencies. The responses to the two versions ofthis question are shown in Table 5.
From page 245...
... -- The Effect of Question Wording on Knowledge of Laws Regarding Sharing of Census Information Response Is the Census Bureau forbidden by law from giving other government agencies census information identified by name or address?
From page 246...
... . In contrast to an implicit Census Bureau hypothesis, knowledge about legal requirements for confideniiality is not enough to convince the public that the Bureau actually protects confidentiality.
From page 247...
... with respect to their attitudes toward government and He Census Bureau. References Blair, Johnny (1995)
From page 248...
... . There is a growing belief that publicly available records, such as credit bureau files, real estate tax data, and similar files make it increasingly likely that an unscrupulous data user might eventually come closer to identifying an SCF respondent [3]
From page 249...
... Because the major focus of the survey is household finances, the SCF includes questions about all types of financial assets (checking accounts, stocks, mutual funds, cash value life insurance, and other such assets) , tangible assets (principal residences, other real estate, businesses, vehicles, and other such assets)
From page 250...
... For these cases, key variables (for which complete responses were originally given) were multiply imputed subject to range constraints that ensured that the outcomes would be close to the Initially reported values.
From page 251...
... ln the figure, "X,' represents complete responses, "R" symbolizes responses given as a type of range, and "O" indicates some type of missing value. In the SCF, there is a lengthy catalog of range and missing data responses, and this information is preserved in the shadow variables.
From page 252...
... Values reported originally as ranges are initialized at their midpoints, and these values are used as conditioning variables for other Imputations until the final choice within He range is imputed. The FRITZ model produces multiple imputations.
From page 253...
... In Me first expenment, all complete reports of dollar values were imputed as if the respondent had originally reported ranges which ran from ten percent above the actual figures to ten percent below that figure. In keeping with our usual practice of using midpoints of ranges as proxies for location indicators in imputation, Me original values were retained until the variable was imputed.
From page 254...
... This module deals largely with total household income and various financial assets Figures 3 through 6 show descriptive plots of data from the Tree e~penments for the following four variables: total income, amount In He first savings account, He amount of Treasury bills and Her Federal bonds (referred to hereafter as "T-bilIs") , and the total value of financial assets [14~.
From page 255...
... ) within Observations, Total Household Income, Esper~nents 1-3.
From page 256...
... l~ennickell Figure 4~: ASH Plop IDS over Obsen~s oll~gl0(ActualVahe) ~Mean~gl0( - putatbn)
From page 257...
... Redford linkage Te`:hn~ues-1997 Are Sa; HI Plots of Di~ib~ Ned O~tbe~u olldog~(Achal V~aeF~e~g~p~tion)
From page 258...
... ) within Ober~rat~m, Total Financial Assets, Exper~nents 1-3.
From page 259...
... ~ Me Bird experiment witch the removal of the reported values used for conditioning In experiment two, the range of Me bias rises furler. The 90~ percentile of Me bias distribution is about 140 percent for total income, and about 400 percent for total financial assets.
From page 261...
... Ifs, ~; t a ~ i ~, t · ~! Actual Face Value of T Bills Actual Financial Assets 261 /
From page 262...
... Table 3 presents the coefficients of a set of simple linear regressions of Me logarithm of total household income on dummy variables for ownership of venous financial assets and the log of Me maximum of one and the value of the corresponding asset. This model has no particular importance as an economic or behavioral characterization.
From page 263...
... Simple regression standard errors are given in italics below each estimate.
From page 264...
... of data users. ~ expect that users wall express considerable resistance to Me idea of completely simulated data.
From page 265...
... [14] The sets of observations underlying the charts include only respondents who gave a complete response for the variable, or, in the case of financial assets, who gave complete responses for all the components of financial assets.
From page 266...
... . Disclosure Review and Its Implications for the 1992 Survey of Finances, Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 1996 Joint Statistical Meetings, Chicago, IL.
From page 267...
... (1997~. Using Range Techniques with CAPT in the 1995 Survey of Consumer Finances Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods, 1996 Joint Statistical Meetings, Chicago, IL.
From page 268...
... The Administrations Statistical Confidentiality Act and two companion initiatives -- the OMB Federal Statistical Confidentiality Order and an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code -- address two issues that are vital to ensuring He integrity and efficiency of Federal statistical programs and, ultimately, the quality of 268 ~
From page 269...
... The proposed legislation would establish policies and procedures to guarantee Me consistent and uniform application of Me confidentiality privilege and authorize Me limited sharing of information among designated statistical agencies for exclusively statistical purposes. initiatives Span More Than Two Decades E Forts to address confidentiality concerns with regard to Federal statistical data have a history that extends for more than 25 years.
From page 270...
... A new strategy was presented to the statistical agencies during the Bush Administration. It had five important features that were m~ss~g from earlier efforts: · It was designed to work with the tools already available in the PRA -- promoting data sharing, but providing for functional separation to ensure Hat the statistical data are only shared for statistical purposes.
From page 271...
... Enthusiasm.-Last but not least, the statistical agencies appear to be in a "can do" mood - e~usiastically supporting Me development and passage of legislation Mat will even out statutory confidentiality protections and permit data sharing for statistical purposes. Whatever the reasons, Me agencies have come together on the Administration proposal now embodied in Statistical Confidentiality Act and its companion pieces.
From page 272...
... Companion Legislation Tn addition to the Statistical Confidentiality Act, special amendments have been proposed to the Statistical Muse subsection of the Internal Revenue Code -- Section 6103 0. These amendments would authorize I~mited disclosure of tax data to agencies which have been designated as Statistical Disclosure Centers.
From page 273...
... The Order also gives additional weight and stature to policies Fat statistical agencies have pursued for clecacles and includes procedures to resolve a number of ambiguities in existing law Following We public rev~ew process, We Federal Statistical Confidentiality Order went into effect on June 27, 1997. What Opportunities Wit' Attend Passage of the Legislation?
From page 274...
... In short, the Statistical Confidentiality Act permits the SDCs and their statistical partners to share bow expertise and data resources to imp rove the quality and reduce Me burden of statistical programs, while preserv~ng privacy. Moreover, no matter how the organizational boxes for the ideal Federal statistical system are drawn, this legislatin wall permit Me components of Me statistical system to manage Weir data as if Hey were a single, fi~nctionally-~ntegrated organization.
From page 275...
... - Ha- I Jim R ~ our hoe ad ~e_= ~ bag me _~1 at 1~= ad me I ~e^ at ~ ~ a 1= gay Is sot s_ Awe Badges me Fecal Local fancies c_md ~ a dec-mli~ aft.


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.