Discussion by Kirk Wolter

May 22, 20122010 Census Coverage Measuremen
1. Coverage measurement results

2. Methods used to produce the CCM results3. Census costs4. Implications for 2020

Outline of My Remarks
Net Undercount Rate: National Level, 2010

• CCM = -0.01% (or overcount of 36,000 people)• DA = -0.09% (or overcount of 270,538 people)• Seems amazingly good

1. Coverage Measurement Results
Census Year Net Undercount (in %)*

1990 1.612000 ‐0.49

2010 ‐0.01

*Results based on the PES method

How Does 2010 Compare to Recent Censuses?
• Race

• Ethnicity• Sex• Age• Type of enumeration area• Housing tenure• Mover status• Urban/rural• State

Differential Undercount
How Does 2010 Compare to Recent Censuses?

0.01.02.03.04.05.06.07.0

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20

Difference in Percent Net Undercount

Census Year

Differential Undercount v. Census Year: National Level

DA Difference by Sex (Male ‐ Female) DA Difference by Race (Black‐Nonblack)PES Difference by Race (NonHispanic Black ‐ NonHispanic White)
Differential Undercount by Age: 

Males in 1980, Demographic Analysis Estimates

‐1

012345

0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 

Net Undercount (in %)

Age Groups

DA Estimated Percent Net Undercount by Age: Males
Differential Undercount by Age: 

Males in 1990, 2000, and 2010, PES Estimates

‐2‐1

012345

0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 17 18 to 29 30 to 49 

Net Undercount (in %)

Age Groups

PES Estimated Percent Net Undercount by Age: Males

2010 2000 1990
• Top three states

• DC = 2.23%• VT = 1.29%• TX = 0.97%

• Bottom three states

• AK = -0.85%• OK = -1.08%• WV = -1.43%

Differential Undercount by State: 2010, CCM Es
CCM Estimate Census Estimat

CorrectEnumerations 284,668

Correct

Enumerations 28

Omissions 15,999 EE+II Total Population 300,667 Total Population 30

2010 was Accurate Overall because of Well TargeteAdditions
Additions at the State Level

0123456789

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

EE+II (in %)

Omissions (in %)

EE+II v. Omissions at the State Level: 2010
Additions at the County Level

0.05.0

10.015.020.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 1

EE+II (in %)

Omissions (in %)

EE+II v. Omissions at the County Level: 2010
Additions at the County Level

0.05.0

10.015.020.0

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0

EE+II (in %)

Omissions (in %)

EE+II v. Omissions at the County Level: 2010

}Net Un
Duplicates are a Major Part of the Census Addit

8521

1520

5993

DuplOtheII
But Do They Distort Relationships?

Key Variables CE Duplicates Other EE II Net Undercoun

Persons

White 95.2 2.7 0.4 1.7 ‐0.

Black 92.6 3.6 0.7 3.1 2.Owner 95.7 2.4 0.4 1.5 ‐0.

Renter 92.5 3.7 0.7 3.0 1.Mailout/Mailback 94.8 2.7 0.5 2.0 0.Update/Leave 92.7 4.7 0.5 2.2 ‐1.Update/Enumerate 91.1 3.0 0.5 5.3 7.OK 92.6 5.0 0.7 1.4 ‐1.

TX 94.0 2.7 0.6 2.6 1.Housing Units

Owner 98.6 0.6 0.8 0.Renter 97.2 1.3 1.5

‐0.
Type of Enumeration Areas
Quality Declines with Time

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2/25‐3/17 3/18‐3/24 3/25‐3/31 4/1 ‐ 4/7 4/8 ‐ 4/15 4/15 ‐ 4/30 5/1 ‐ 9/30 No Valid 

Components of Census by Mail Return Date

CE Duplicates Other EE II
Quality Declines with Time - continued

0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

April May June July and

August

Unknown

Month

In VDC and in

NRFU

In VDC but not

NRFU

Not in N

VDC bu

NRF

Reinterv

Resid

Components of Census by NRFU Domain and Month of Enumer

CE Duplicates Other EE II
• Analysis by mover status

• Ethnographic studies• Analysis of omissions

• Within household• Whole household

Wish List
Analysis of Omissions

0123456789

10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Omisions of Persons (in %)

Omissions of HUs (in %)

Omissions of Persons v. Omissions of HUs: State Level, 2010
• Basic Method

• Problems?

• Not enough information for matching

• Innovations

• Assessment of undercount by stage of operations• Persons and HUs• Logistic regression• Correction for correlation bias

2. Methods Used to Produce the CCM Results
• Great work!

2. Methods - continued
3. Census Costs

$0

$20$40$60$80

$100$120$140

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2

Dollars

Census Years

Costs in 2009 Real Dollars per HU v. Census Year
Approximate Distribution of Total Costs in 2010

$2,266

$436

$2,129

$148

$364

$2,986

$4,147

CommunPrinting aOffice spFingerpriNational HeadquaField ops
Approximate Distribution of Field Ops Costs in 

$386

$2,744

$341

$108

$118

$450

Address caNRFUVDCUpdate/enUpdate/leaOther field 
• Simulate cost and quality of alternative census s

• Address canvassing• NRFU• VDC• CFU• Update/leave• Update/enumerate

• Ascertain key reasons why people and HUs are 

missed

4. Implications for 2020
• Duplicates, other EE, and II

• Ascertain key reasons for EE+II• Ascertain how well they balance omissions within bloc

and counties

• Are they a cost-effective, worthwhile, and acceptable 

compensation for the omissions

• Internet census 

• Any new problems of EE, II, or omissions?• Any new problems of coverage measurement?

• Administrative records census

• Any new problems of EE, II, or omissions?• Any new problems of coverage measurement?

2020 - continued
Thank You!