2010 Census Coverag

Measurement Results

News Conference
Coverage of the Censu

Several ways to measure quality of ce• Census process indicators• Demographic Analysis and other types• Post-enumeration survey, CCM
Return Rate: 2000 vs. 20

74.1 75.8

4.3 3.5

0

102030405060708090

100

2000 2010

FinaPrioFoll

78.4 79.3
2010 Census and Demographic Analysis (in Tho

2010 Census 

308,746
Coverage of the Censu

Several ways to measure quality of ce• Census process indicators• Demographic Analysis and other types• Post-enumeration survey, CCM
Census Coverage 

Measurement Univers

• Household Population and Housing • Excludes 

– Group Quarters and Group Quarter Populatio– Remote Alaska
Census Count of the 

CCM Household Populat

2010 Census Count 308,74Group Quarters Population - 7,98Remote Alaska - 5Census Count ofCCM Household Population 300,70
8

Coverage of the Censu

Net census coverage (defined as)

= estimate of population from survey 

– census count

if positive (>0), referred to as net undercif negative (<0), net overcount
9

Coverage of the Censu

(continued)

Percent Net coverage (defined as)if positive (>0), referred to as % net underif negative (<0), % net overcount

estimate from survey

estimate from survey - census count


Results for Person
National Net Coverage Res

Census Count of the Population (Thousands): 30Estimate of the Population from CCM (Thousands): 30Overcount (Thousands): Percent Net Undercount: -
U.S. Total Percentage Net Undercount 

from 1980 - 2010 

1.61%

-0.49%

-0.01%

0.8%1.4%

-1%

0%1%2%

1980 1990 2000 2010
U.S. Total Percentage Net Undercount 

from 1980 - 2010 

1.61%

-0.49%

-0.01%

0.8%1.4%

-1%

0%1%2%

1980 1990 2000 2010
Household Population Net Undercount for 

International Censuses of Population and Hou

Note: The United Kingdom's increase rate is due to the hand

"absent house

-1

01234567

1980 -

1981

1990 -

1991

2000 -

2001

2010 -

2011
Percentage Net Undercount for Persons by T

1990 – 2010 

* Statistically significantly different 

0.04%

4.51%*

-1.25*

1.14%*

-0.57%*

1.09%*

-2%-1%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%

Owner Renter
1990 2000 2010

Non-Hispanic White 0.68* -1.13* -0.84*

Non-Hispanic Black 4.57* 1.84* 2.07*Non-Hispanic Asian 2.36* -0.75 0.08American Indian on Reservation 12.22* -0.88 4.88*American Indian off Reservation 0.68* 0.62 -1.95Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2.36* 2.12 1.34Hispanic Origin 4.99* 0.71 1.54*

* Statistically significantly diffe

Percentage Net Undercount by Race and Hispan
Percentage Net Undercount by Race and Hispan

1990 2000 2010

Non-Hispanic White 0.68* -1.13* -0.84*

Non-Hispanic Black 4.57* 1.84* 2.07*Non-Hispanic Asian 2.36* -0.75 0.08American Indian on Reservation 12.22* -0.88 4.88*American Indian of

f Reservation 0.68* 0.62 -1.95

Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2.36* 2.12 1.34Hispanic Origin 4.99* 0.71 1.54*

* Statistically significantly diffe
1990 2000 2010

Non-Hispanic White 0.68* -1.13* -0.84*

Non-Hispanic Black 4.57* 1.84* 2.07*Non-Hispanic Asian 2.36* -0.75 0.08American Indian on Reservation 12.22* -0.88 4.88*American Indian off Reservation 0.68* 0.62 -1.95Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2.36* 2.12 1.34Hispanic Origin 4.99* 0.71 1.54*

Is ther

diffe

199

YeYeYe

* Statistically significantly diffe

Percentage Net Undercount by Race and Hispan
1990 2000 2010

Non-Hispanic White 0.68* -1.13* -0.84*

Non-Hispanic Black 4.57* 1.84* 2.07*Non-Hispanic Asian 2.36* -0.75 0.08American Indian on Reservation 12.22* -0.88 4.88*American Indian off Reservation 0.68* 0.62 -1.95Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2.36* 2.12 1.34Hispanic Origin 4.99* 0.71 1.54*

Is ther

diffe

199

YeYeYe

* Statistically significantly diffe

Percentage Net Undercount by Race and Hispan
1990 2000 2010

Non-Hispanic White 0.68* -1.13* -0.84*

Non-Hispanic Black 4.57* 1.84* 2.07*Non-Hispanic Asian 2.36* -0.75 0.08American Indian on Reservation 12.22* -0.88 4.88*American Indian off Reservation 0.68* 0.62 -1.95Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 2.36* 2.12 1.34Hispanic Origin 4.99* 0.71 1.54*

Is ther

diffe

199

YeYeYe

* Statistically significantly diffe

Percentage Net Undercount by Race and Hispan
Percentage Net Undercount by Age for Chil

1990-2010

Age 1990 2000 2010

0 to 4 

3.18*

-0.46

0.72*

5 to 9 -0.3310 to 17 -1.32* -0.97*

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Net Undercount by Age for Chil

1990-2010

Age 1990 2000 2010

0 to 4 

3.18*

-0.46

0.72*

5 to 9 -0.3310 to 17 -1.32* -0.97*

Is there a sig

difference 

2010

1990 

Yes

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Net Undercount by Age and Sex fo

1990-2010

Age and Sex 1990 2000 2010

18 to 29 Males 3.30* 1.12* 1.21*18 to 29 Females 2.83* -1.39* -0.2830 to 49 Males 1.89* 2.01* 3.57*30 to 49 Females 0.88* -0.60* -0.42*50+ Males -0.59* -0.80* -0.32*50+ Females -1.24* -2.53* -2.35*

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Net Undercount by Age and Sex fo

1990-2010

Age and Sex 1990 2000 2010

18 to 29 Males 3.30* 1.12* 1.21*18 to 29 Females 2.83* -1.39* -0.2830 to 49 Males 1.89* 2.01* 3.57*30 to 49 Females 0.88* -0.60* -0.42*50+ Males -0.59* -0.80* -0.32*50+ Females -1.24* -2.53* -2.35*

Is there a sig

difference 

2010

1990 

YesYes Yes 

YesYes

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Net Undercount by Age and S

1990-2010

Age and Sex 1990 2000 2010

18 to 29 Males 3.30* 1.12* 1.21*18 to 29 Females 2.83* -1.39* -0.2830 to 49 Males 1.89* 2.01* 3.57*30 to 49 Females 0.88* -0.60* -0.42*50+ Males -0.59* -0.80* -0.32*50+ Females -1.24* -2.53* -2.35*

Is there a sig

difference 

2010

1990 

YesYes Yes 

YesYes

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Undercount for Persons by Re

in 2010

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Net Undercount for Persons by 

No state or DC has a statistically significant undercount or ov
Percent Net Undercount for Perso

Counties and Places

• 100,000+ Total Population• No county or place has a statistically 

significant undercount or overcount.
Summary: Net Error

• Compared to prior censuses, the percentage un

for 2010 was smaller.

• At the national level, there was no statistically si

undercount or overcount of people in the census

• Classical patterns observed in past censuses we

repeated in 2010

– Differentials among some of the race/Hispanic origin g
Components of Censu

Coverage:

For Persons
Components of Census Covera

2010 CCM: First time we've produced ...• Extensive, detailed estimates of compone• Estimates of net error or components for 

operations
Census Count and the CCM Estimate

(Level, in Millions)

300.70 300.67

0

50

100150200250300350

Census CCM
National Components of the Census Cou

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
U.S. Persons: National Components of Cen

Coverage (in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 

Due to duplication 8.5 0.19 For other reasons 1.5 0.05 

Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 
U.S. Persons: National Components of Cen

Coverage (in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 

Due to duplication 8.5 0.19 For other reasons 1.5 0.05 

Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 
U.S. Persons: National Components of Cen

Coverage (in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 

Due to duplication 8.5 0.19 For other reasons 1.5 0.05 

Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 
U.S. Persons: National Components of Cen

Coverage (in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 

Due to duplication 8.5 0.19 For other reasons 1.5 0.05 

Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 
U.S. Persons: National Components of Cen

Coverage (in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 

Due to duplication 8.5 0.19 For other reasons 1.5 0.05 

Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 
U.S. Persons: National Components of Cen

Coverage (in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 

Due to duplication 8.5 0.19 For other reasons 1.5 0.05 

Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 
Whole-Person Census Imputati

• "Imputation" here refers to the characteristics be

statistically imputed or inserted

• For over 80% of these cases (4.8 million), we kn

many people lived there, but the people are mischaracteristics

• For over 95% of these cases, we know the hous

was occupied, but the people are missing chara
Census Count and the CCM Estimate

(Level, in Millions)

300.70 300.67

0

50

100150200250300350

Census CCM
National Components of the CCM Estima

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
U.S. Persons: National Components of the CCM E

(in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Estimate of Pop. from CCM 300.7 0.43 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Omissions 16.0 0.44 
U.S. Persons: National Components of the CCM E

(in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Estimate of Pop. from CCM 300.7 0.43 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Omissions 16.0 0.44 
U.S. Persons: National Components of the CCM E

(in Millions)

Component of Census Coverage EstimateStandard Error Per

Estimate of Pop. from CCM 300.7 0.43 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Omissions 16.0 0.44 
Components of the Census and CCM

Components of the Census Count EstimateStandard Error Per

Census Count 300.7 0 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Erroneous enumerations 10.0 0.20 Whole-Person Imputations 6.0 0 

Components of the CCM EstimateStandard Error Per

Estimate of Pop. from CCM 300.7 0.43 10

Correct enumerations 284.7 0.20 9Omissions 16.0 0.44 
Components of Census Coverage in 201

(Level, in Millions)

0

50

100150200250300350

Census CCM

275280285290295300305

Census 
Percent Undercount by Owner/Renter for Pe

in 2010

* Statistically significantly differen

-0.6%*

1.1%*

-1.0%-0.5%

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%
Components of Census Coverage in 201

for Owners and Renters – Erroneous Enumer

2.8%

4.4%

0%1%2%3%4%5%

Owner Renter
Components of Census Coverage in 201

for Owners and Renters – Whole-Person Ce

Imputations

1.5%

3.0%

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%

Owner Renter
Components of Census Coverage in 201

for Owners and Renters - Omissions

3.7%

8.5%

0%1%2%3%4%5%6%7%8%9%

10%

Owner Renter
Observations: Owner vs. Re

• Among renters, we see higher rates of 

erroneous enumerations, imputations, anomissions

• For other estimation categories or subgro

the results may partially reflect the differebetween owners and renters
Components of Censu

Coverage:

For Persons

Census Operations
Census Count for Persons by Date of Mail R

Mail Return Date Census Count (Thousands) Percent

Feb. 25 – March 17 8,065 March 18 – 24 83,659 March 25 – 31 65,740 April 1 – 7 31,060 April 8 – 15 14,990 April 15 – 30 13,267 May 1 – Sept. 7 4,174 
Components of Census Coverage in 201

by Date of Mail Return

Note: Valid 

3.3%

2.4%

1.7%

2.3%

2.9%

3.2%

3.5%

2.0%

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 

0%1%2%3%4%

Erroneous Enumerations Whole-Person Census Imp
Observations: Date of Mail R

• Among those who mailed the census form 

to us, we see lower rates of erroneous enumeration (by a little) and imputation (blot), than the national average

• These error rates generally increase sligh

the weeks go by
Census Count for Persons by Respondent Typ

Nonresponse Followup Field Operation

Respondent Type Census Count (Thousands) Perce

Household Member 61,437 Proxy 16,294 Unknown Respondent Type 589 
Components of Census Coverage in 2010

by Respondent Type in Nonresponse Followup Field O

5.0% 6.7% 3.8%

1.6% 2.6

23.1%

28.0%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

Household

Member

Proxy Unknown

Respondent

Not 

Erroneous Enumerations Whole-Person Census Imp

NRFU Responses
Observations: Respondent Ty

NRFU

For people requiring NRFU (they did not mail a for• We see much higher rates of erroneous enumer

and imputation, compared to those who mailed tback

• Proxy responses have a higher rate of erroneou

enumeration and imputation, compared to respofrom a household members
Census Count for Persons by Completion Mon

Nonresponse Followup Field Operation

Nonresponse Followup 

Completion Month

Census Count 

(Thousands) Perc

April 1,755 May 60,788 June 15,375 July and August 221 Unknown 181 
Components of Census Coverage in 201

by Completion Month in the Nonresponse Follo

Operation (NRFU Field Cases Only)

4.4% 5.1% 6.3%

7.6%

2.9% 5.4%

9.9%

17.5%

0%4%8%

12%16%20%24%28%32%

April May June July and

August

Erroneous EnumerationsWhole-Person CensusImputations

Census Count (T

April May June July & August Unknown Month 
Observations: Completion Month in 

Among NRFU respondents:• The rates of erroneous enumeration and 

imputation are larger in June than in May

• The rate of imputation increases the long

takes to complete the response
Summary: Components o

Census Coverage

• At the national level, we estimated 16.0 million omiss

6.0 million of these were likely counted as census impu

• These omissions were offset by 10.0 million (3.3%) e

enumerations (mostly duplicates) and 6.0 million imp

• As a whole, erroneous enumerations and imputation

lower among people who mailed back a census form

• In NRFU, responses from proxies suffered a higher 

errors than responses from household members; we more errors the later the interview was completed.
Summary (cont.)

The value of components of coverage• We can quantify errors that may offset an

produce a very small undercount or overc

• We can study results by operations and o

subgroups to see where we must focus reand planning.
Additional Analysis Onl

• Geography• Various Demographic Categories• Census Operational Areas
Afternoon Technical Mee

• Technical Panel• Discussants
Questions?