Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the U.S. Decennial Census Coverage Estimates for Children from Demographic Analysis and Coverage Measurement Surveys

  • Published:
Population Research and Policy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Following every U.S. decennial census since 1960, the U.S. Census Bureau has evaluated the completeness of coverage using two different methods. Demographic analysis (DA) compares the census counts to a set of independent population estimates to infer coverage differences by age, sex, and race. The survey-based approach (also called dual system estimation or DSE) provides coverage estimates based on matching data from a post-enumeration survey to census records. This paper reviews the fundamentals of the two methodological approaches and then initially examines the results of these two methods for the 2010 decennial census in terms of consistency and inconsistency for age groups. The authors find that the two methods produce relatively consistent results for all age groups, except for young children. Consequently, the paper focuses on the results for children. Results of the 1990, 2000, and 2010 decennial censuses are shown for the overall population in this age group and by demographic detail (age, race, and Hispanic origin). Among children, the DA and DSE results are most inconsistent for the population aged 0–4 and most consistent for ages 10–17. Results also show that DA and DSE are more consistent for Black than non-Black populations. The authors discuss possible explanations for the differences in the two methods for young children and conclude that the DSE approach may underestimate the net undercount of young children due to correlation bias.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bell, W. (1992). Using information from Demographic Analysis in Post-Enumeration Survey estimation. Statistical Research Division: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/documentation/pdf/rr92-04.pdf.

  • Bell, W. (1993). Using information from demographic analysis in post-enumeration survey estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(423), 1106–1118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskar, R., Arenas-Germosen, B., & Dick, C. (2013). Demographic Analysis 2010: Sensitivity analysis of the foreign-born migration component. Census Bureau Working Paper No. 98. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0090/twps0090.pdf.

  • Bhaskar, R., Scopilliti, M., Hollman, F., & Armstrong, D. (2010). Plans for producing estimates of net international migration for the 2010 demographic analysis estimates. Census Bureau Working Paper No. 90.

  • Devine, J., Sink, L., DeSalvo, B., & Cortes, R. (2010). The use of vital statistics in the 2010 Demographic Analysis estimates. Census Bureau Working Paper No. 88. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0088/twps0088.pdf.

  • Ennis, S., Rios-Vargas, M., & Albert, N. (2011). The Hispanic Population: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-04, U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf.

  • Griffin, D. H. (2014). Final task force report: Task force on the undercount of young children. Memorandum for Frank A. Vitrano, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

  • Hogan, H. (1992). The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: An overview. The American Statistician, 46, 261–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, H. (1993). 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: Operation and results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1047–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, H. (2003). The accuracy and coverage evaluation: Theory and design. Survey Methodology, 29, 129–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, H. (2013). The undercount of young children in official statistics. In Proceedings of the 2013 joint statistical meeting, Montreal, Canada.

  • Hogan, H., Cantwell, P., Devine, J., Mule, V. T., & Velkoff, V. (2013). Quality and the 2010 Census. Population Research and Public Policy, 32, 637–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konicki, S. (2012). 2010 Census coverage measurement evaluation report: Adjustment for correlation bias. DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series No. 2010-G-11. U.S. Census Bureau.

  • Marks, E. S. (1979). The role of dual system estimation in census evaluation. In K. Krotki (Ed.), Recent developments in DSE/PGE (pp. 156–188). Alberta: University of Alberta Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mule, V. T. (2010). U.S. coverage measurement survey plans. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Mule, V. T. (2012). Ages of P-sample and census match records. Draft June 2, 2012, U.S. Census Bureau.

  • Mulry, M. (2014). Measuring undercounts for hard-to-reach groups. In R. Tourangeau, B. Edwards, T. P. Johnson, K. M. Wolter, & N. Bates (Eds.), Hard-to-survey populations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2004). The 2000 Census: Counting under adversity. In Constance F. Citro, Daniel L. Cork, & Janet L. Norwood (Eds.), Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Washington, DC: Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education, The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, W. (1999). The overlooked undercount: Children missed in the decennial census. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, W. (2009). Why are young children missed so often in the census?. KIDS COUNT Working Paper. http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Other/W/WhoAreYoungChildrenMissedSoOftenintheCensus/final%20census%20undercount%20paper.pdf.

  • O’Hare, W. (2013). The net undercount of children in the U.S. Decennial Census. In Proceedings of the 2013 joint statistical meeting, Montreal, Canada

  • O’Hare, W. (2014a). Assessing net coverage error for young children in the 2010 U.S. Decennial Census. Center for Survey Measurement Study Series (Survey Methodology #2014-02). U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2014-02.pdf

  • O’Hare, W. (2014b). Historical examination of net coverage error for children in the U.S. Decennial Census: 1950–2010.Center for Survey Measurement Study Series (Survey Methodology #2014-03). U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/srd/papers/pdf/ssm2014-03.pdf.

  • O’Hare, W. (2015). The undercount of young children in the U.S. Decennial Census. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. G. (2000). Accuracy and coverage evaluation: Demographic analysis results. DSSD Census 2000 Procedures for Operations Memorandum Series B-4, U.S. Census Bureau.

  • Robinson, J. G. (2010). Coverage of population in Census 2000 based on demographic analysis: The history behind the numbers. Census Bureau Working Paper No. 91. http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0091/twps0091.pdf

  • Robinson, J. G., Adlakha, A., & West, K. K. (2002). Coverage of population in Census 2000: Results from demographic analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Atlanta, Georgia.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (1988). The coverage of population in the 1980 Census. Evaluation and Research Reports, PHC80-E4. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (1985). Evaluating censuses of population and housing. Statistical Training Document, ISP-TR-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2002a) A.C.E. Revision II: Summary of estimated net coverage. DSSD A.C.E. Revision II Estimates Memorandum Series No. PP-54. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2002b) Comparison of A.C.E. Revision II Results with Demographic Analysis. DSSD A.C.E. Revision II Estimates Memorandum Series No. PP-41. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2003) Technical Assessment of A.C.E. Revision II. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2004) Accuracy and coverage evaluation of Census 2000: Design and methodology. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Development and sensitivity analysis of the 2010 demographic analysis estimates, population division background paper. Tables released at December 2010 Conference on Demographic Analysis. Table 2 available online at http://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/demographic_analysis.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2012a). Documentation for the revised 2010 demographic analysis middle series estimates. http://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/demographic_analysis.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2012b). DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-G-01: 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: Summary of Estimates of Coverage for Persons in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). DSSD 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Memorandum Series #2010-E-51: 2010 Census Coverage Measurement Estimation Report: 2010 Components of Census Coverage for Race Groups and Hispanic Origin by Age, Sex and Tenure in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • Vitrano, F. (2013) Looking ahead-early thinking on the 2020 plans to reduce differential undercoverage of young children. Presentation at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Montreal Canada, August 7.

  • Weinberg. (2013). Improving the coverage of children in the 2010 US Census. Presentation at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Montreal Canada, August 7.

  • West, K. (2012). Using the Medicare enrollment file for the DA 2010 estimates. Paper presented at the Applied Demography Conference, San Antonio, Texas.

  • West, K., & Robinson, J. G. (1999). What do we know about the undercount of children? Census Bureau Working Paper No. 39. http://www.census.gov/people/publications/popworkingpapers.html.

  • Wolter, K. M. (1986). Some coverage error models for census data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. O’Hare Data and Demographic Services LLC, 11 Randolph Avenue, Cape Charles, VA, 23310, USA

    William P. O’Hare

  2. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, USA

    J. Gregory Robinson, Kirsten West & Thomas Mule

Authors
  1. William P. O’Hare
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Gregory Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kirsten West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Mule
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William P. O’Hare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Hare, W.P., Robinson, J.G., West, K. et al. Comparing the U.S. Decennial Census Coverage Estimates for Children from Demographic Analysis and Coverage Measurement Surveys. Popul Res Policy Rev 35, 685–704 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-016-9397-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-016-9397-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation