Advertisement

Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 35, Issue 5, pp 685–704 | Cite as

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

  • William P. O’HareEmail author
  • J. Gregory Robinson
  • Kirsten West
  • Thomas Mule
Article

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.

Keywords

Census Undercount Children Methodology 

References

  1. 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.
  2. Bell, W. (1993). Using information from demographic analysis in post-enumeration survey estimation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(423), 1106–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Hogan, H. (1992). The 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: An overview. The American Statistician, 46, 261–269.Google Scholar
  9. Hogan, H. (1993). 1990 Post-Enumeration Survey: Operation and results. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1047–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hogan, H. (2003). The accuracy and coverage evaluation: Theory and design. Survey Methodology, 29, 129–138.Google Scholar
  11. Hogan, H. (2013). The undercount of young children in official statistics. In Proceedings of the 2013 joint statistical meeting, Montreal, Canada. Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Mule, V. T. (2010). U.S. coverage measurement survey plans. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
  16. Mule, V. T. (2012). Ages of P-sample and census match records. Draft June 2, 2012, U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. O’Hare, W. (1999). The overlooked undercount: Children missed in the decennial census. Baltimore: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Maryland.Google Scholar
  20. 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.
  21. 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 Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. O’Hare, W. (2015). The undercount of young children in the U.S. Decennial Census. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Census Bureau. (1985). Evaluating censuses of population and housing. Statistical Training Document, ISP-TR-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003) Technical Assessment of A.C.E. Revision II. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  33. U.S. Census Bureau. (2004) Accuracy and coverage evaluation of Census 2000: Design and methodology. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012a). Documentation for the revised 2010 demographic analysis middle series estimates. http://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/demographic_analysis.
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Weinberg. (2013). Improving the coverage of children in the 2010 US Census. Presentation at the Joint Statistical Meetings, Montreal Canada, August 7.Google Scholar
  40. West, K. (2012). Using the Medicare enrollment file for the DA 2010 estimates. Paper presented at the Applied Demography Conference, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  41. 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.
  42. Wolter, K. M. (1986). Some coverage error models for census data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • William P. O’Hare
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. Gregory Robinson
    • 2
  • Kirsten West
    • 2
  • Thomas Mule
    • 2
  1. 1.O’Hare Data and Demographic Services LLCCape CharlesUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Census BureauWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations