Advertisement

Coverage of Young Children in the 2010 U.S. Decennial Census

  • William P. O’HareEmail author
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Population Studies book series (BRIEFSPOPULAT)

Abstract

For the total population there was a small net undercount in the 2010 U.S. Census but this is a product of a 1.7 % net under count for children (age 0–17) an a 0.7 % net overcount for adults (age 18 plus). Demographic Analysis (DA) shows young children (age 0–4) had a higher net undercount than any other age group in the 2010 U.S. Census and that younger children had higher net undercount rates than older children. Young Blacks Alone or in Combination and Hispanics had higher net undercount rates than others.

Keywords

Census coverage Net undercount Undercount differentials Children Young children 

References

  1. Anderson, M. J., Citro, C. F., & Salvo, J. J. (Eds.), (2012). Encyclopedia of the U.S. census: From the constitution to the American Community Survey (ACS). Beverley Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Bruce, A., & Robinson, J. G. (2003) The planning database: Its development and use as an effective tool in census 2000. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Demographic Association. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  3. Erdman, C., & Bates, N. (2014). The census bureau mail return rate challenge: Crowdsourcing to development hard-to-count scores. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  4. Fein, D. J. (1989). The social sources of census omission: Racial and ethnic differences in omission rates in recent U.S. censuses. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton NJ.Google Scholar
  5. O’Hare, W. P. (2014a). Assessing net coverage error for young children in the 2010 U.S. decennial census. In Center for survey measurement study series (survey methodology #2014–02). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  6. O’Hare, W. P. (2014b). Historical examination of net coverage error for children in the U.S. decennial census: 1950 to 2010. In Center for survey measurement study series (survey methodology #2014–03). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  7. U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Tables released at December 2010 Conference.Google Scholar
  8. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Documentation for the revised 2010 demographic analysis middle series estimates.Google Scholar
  9. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2014). U.S. population projections: 2014–2060: Release number CB14-TPS.86. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  10. Van Hook, J., Bean, F. D., Bachmeier, J. D., & Tucker, C. (2014). Recent trends in coverage of mexican-born population of the United States, results from applying multiple methods across time. In Demography, published on line Feb 26, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s13524-014-0280-2.
  11. Velkoff, V. (2011). Demographic evaluation of the 2010 census. In Paper presented at the 2011 PAA Annual Conference. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  12. West, K. K., Robinson, J. G., & Bentley, M. (2005). Did proxy respondents cause age heaping in the census 2000? In Paper delivered at the Joint Statistical Meetings: ASA Section on Survey Research Methods.Google Scholar
  13. West, K., Devine, J., & Robinson, J. G. (2014). An assessment of historical demographic analysis estimates for the black male birth cohorts of 1935–39. In Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association. Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.O’Hare Data and Demographic Services LLCEllicott CityUSA

Personalised recommendations