CCM Estimation Methodol

and Additional Results

Thomas Mule, U.S. Census Bure

1
Census Count and the CCM Estimate

(Level, in Millions)

300.70 300.67

0

50

100150200250300350

Census CCM
Census Count and the CCM Estimate

(Level, in Millions)

300.70 300.67

0

50

100150200250300350

Census CCM
Dual System Estimatio

• Capture/Recapture Approach• Citations

– Peterson (1896)– Sekar and Deming (1949)– Wolter (1986)– Hogan (1993)– Census Bureau, A.C.E. Design & Meth. 

(2004)
5

Dual System Estimation

Enumerated in PES 

( P Sample )

YES NO 

Correctly 

Enumerated 

in Census ?

( E sample )

YES N11 N12 

NO N21 N22 

Total N+1 N+2 
Dual System Estimation

Logistic Regression

CCM using logistic regression instead of stratification • Haberman, Jiang and Spencer (1998), Gri

(2005), Mule and Olson (2005), Mule (200

Logistic regression• Include variables as main effects• Do not need to include any unnecessary 

interactions

• Include more variables
Independent Variables fo

Person Logistic Regression M

Race and Hispanic Origin (7)Age/Sex Groups (9)TenureRegionMetropolitan Statistical Area/ Type of EnumeratioParticipation RateSpouse PresentRelationship to HouseholderReplacement Mailing AreasBilingual Mail Areas
National Components of the Census Cou

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
National Components of the Census Cou

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
National Components of the Census Cou

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
National Components of the CCM Estima

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
National Components of the CCM Estima

0

50

100150200250300350

275280285290295300305
Additional Results
Person Duplication

2010: 8.5 million (2.8%)2000: 6.6 million (2.1%)
Person Erroneous Enumerations Due to Dupl

Between Housing Units 

2000 2

Count Percent Count 

Within Collection Block 2,907 0.97 3,801 Within Collection Tract, Different Block 625 0.21 1,018 Within County, Different Tract 1,210 0.40 1,649 Within State, Different County 664 0.22 852 Different State 549 0.18 686 Total 5,955 1.98 8,006 
Person Erroneous Enumerations Due to Dupl

Between Housing Units 

2000 2

Count Percent Count 

Within Collection Block 2,907 0.97 3,801 Within Collection Tract, Different Block 625 0.21 1,018 Within County, Different Tract 1,210 0.40 1,649 Within State, Different County 664 0.22 852 Different State 549 0.18 686 Total 5,955 1.98 8,006 
Person Erroneous Enumerations Due to Dupl

Between Housing Units 

2000 2

Count Percent Count 

Within Collection Block 2,907 0.97 3,801 Within Collection Tract, Different Block 625 0.21 1,018 Within County, Different Tract 1,210 0.40 1,649 Within State, Different County 664 0.22 852 Different State 549 0.18 686 Total 5,955 1.98 8,006 
Person Erroneous Enumerations Due to Dupl

Between Housing Units and Group Quarte

2000 2

Count Percent Count 

Within Collection Block 73 0.02 41 Within Collection Tract, Different Block 42 0.01 16 Within County, Different Tract 219 0.07 138 Within State, Different County 190 0.06 237 Different State 92 0.03 83 Total 616 0.20 515 
Person Erroneous Enumerations Due to Dupl

Between Housing Units and Group Quarte

2000 2

Count Percent Count 

Within Collection Block 73 0.02 41 Within Collection Tract, Different Block 42 0.01 16 Within County, Different Tract 219 0.07 138 Within State, Different County 190 0.06 237 Different State 92 0.03 83 Total 616 0.20 515 
Race and Hispanic Orig
Percentage Net Undercount by 

Race Alone or in Combination and Hispanic 

* Statistically significantly differ

-0.54%*

2.06%*

0.00% 0.15%

1.02%

1.63%* 

-3%-2%-1%

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

White BlackAsian American IndianNative Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Some Other Race
3.1%

4.2%

3.2%

4.6%

4.2%

4.2%

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

White BlackAsian American IndianNative Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Some Other Race

Erroneous Enumerations by 

Race Alone or in Combination and Hispanic 
Whole-Person Census Imputations by 

Race Alone or in Combination and Hispanic 

1.7%

3.1%

2.1%

2.9% 2.8% 2.9%

2

0%1%2%3%4%

White BlackAsian American IndianNative Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Some Other Race
Omissions by 

Race Alone or in Combination and Hispanic 

4.3%

9.3%

5.3%

7.6%

7.9%

8.6%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%

White BlackAsian American IndianNative Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Some Other Race
Percentage Net Undercount for 

American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone or in Co

by Geographic Area

* Statistically significantly differ

4.88%*

-3.86%

-0.05%

-10%

-8%-6%-4%-2%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%

On ReseAmerican Off ReseBalance o
Components of the Census Coverage

for American Indian and Alaskan Native Alone or in C

5.1%

10.7%

4.1% 3.8%

1.5%

2.9%

13.7%

8.8%

6.6%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%

On Reservation American

Indian Areas

Off Reservation

Balance of the

U.S.

EEImO
Type of Enumeration Are

• Mailout/Mailback• Update/Leave• Update/Enumerate

Count 

(Thousands) Per

278,553 9

20,076 

2,074 
Percentage Net Undercount for Persons 

by Type of Enumeration Area

Cen

Mailout/Mailback Update/Leave Update/Enumerate 

* Statistically significantly differe

0.02%

-1.37%*

7.87%*

-4%-2%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%

P

e

r

s

on

s

Mailout/MailbUpdate/LeavUpdate/Enum
Components of Census Coverage in 2010

by Type of Enumeration Area for Persons (Percen

Census C

Mailout/Mailback 27Update/Leave 2Update/Enumerate 

3.2%

5.2% 3.5%

2.0% 2.2%

5.3% 5.2% 6.1%

16.0%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%

Mailout/

Mailback

Update/ Leave Update/

Enumerate

P

e

r

s

on

s

ErroEnuImpOm
Percentage Net Undercount for Occupied Housin

by Type of Enumeration Area and Tenure

* Statistically significantly differe

0.21%*

-0.16%

2.84%*

-0.28%

-0.84%

3.

-4%-2%

0%2%4%6%8%

Mailout/Mailback Update/Leave Update/En

H

ou

s

i

ng

U

n

i

t

s

Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Bilingual Mailing Area
Percent Undercount by Bilingual Mailing Areas fo

0.80%*

-0.5% -0.12%

0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%

Bilingual MBalance of 
Percent Undercount by Bilingual Mailing Are

Hispanic Origin for Persons

1.33%*

1.72%*

-0.15% -0.33%*

-2%-1%

0%1%2%3%

Bilingual Mailing Area Balance of U.S.

HisNo
Components of Census Coverage by Bilingual 

Area for Persons

3.3% 3.2% 2.6% 1.9%

7.6%

4.8%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

ErroneoWhole PImputatOmissio

4.5%

3.6%

2.2% 2.6%

7.9%

6.0%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%

Hispanic Non-Hispanic

Bilingual Mailing AreaBalance of the U.S.
Nonresponse Followu

Operation

4 Field Operations• NRFU• NRFU Vacant/Delete Check• NRFU Reinterview• NRFU Residual
NRFU VDC Field Operat

4 Field Operations• NRFU• NRFU Vacant/Delete Check• NRFU Reinterview• NRFU Residual
NRFU VDC Field Operat

4 Field Operations• NRFU• NRFU Vacant/Delete Check• NRFU Reinterview• NRFU Residual
NRFU VDC Field Operat

4 Field Operations• NRFU• NRFU Vacant/Delete Check• NRFU Reinterview• NRFU Residual
Components of Census Coverage for Vacant Del

by NRFU Field Operation Status –

Persons

15.3%

16.1%

2.0%

0.8%

17.0%

14.1%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%

In NRFU Not in NRFU

P

e

r

s

on

s

Erroneous DuplicationErroneous ReasonsWhole-PersImputations
Components of Census Coverage for Vacant Del

by Nonresponse Followup Operation Statu

Housing Units

1.7%

11.3%

10.6%

5.5%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%

In NRFU Not in NRFU

H

ou

s

i

ng

U

n

i

t

s

Erroneous DuplicationErroneous Reasons
Coverage Followup

Overcount Coverage QuestionShow results for some of the possible answers
Coverage Followup

Overcount Coverage Probe
Coverage Followup

Overcount Coverage Probe
Coverage Followup

Overcount Coverage Probe

“Yes” for multiple people in housing unit
Components of Census Coverage by CFU Ove

Question Household Status

3.4%

16.2%

0.8%

3.5%

0.0% 0.1%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

Erroneous Due to DuplicationErroneous Due to Other ReasonsWhole-Person Census Imputations

1.2%

3.5%

1.8%

5.8%

0.0% 0.1%

6.2%

1.8%

0.0

College Military Multiple 

Housin
Components of 

Census Coverage for Persons

Governmental Entities

• States• Counties and Places over 500,000
Person Correct Enumeration Percentages 

States, Counties, and Places
Person Erroneous Enumeration Percentage

States, Counties, and Places
Whole-Person Census Imputation Percentag

States, Counties, and Places
Person Omission Percentages for 

States, Counties, and Places
Results for Housing U
Percentage Net Undercount for Housing Units by 

2000 – 2010 

* Statistically significantly differe

0.54* 0.20*

-0.08 -0.29

3.37*

4.80*

-2%-1%

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

2000 2010

OccupieOccupieVacant
Percent Undercount by Type of Structur

for Housing Units 2000 - 2010

Note: The trailer category was not estimated 

0.86%*

‐0.08% ‐0.07%

1.00%*

‐1.82%*

‐0.01%

1.96%*

‐4.0%‐3.0%‐2.0%‐1.0%

0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%

Single Unit Small Multi‐

Unit (2 to 9)

Large Multi‐

Unit (10+)

Trailers and

Others

* Statistically significantly different f
Percentage Undercount for Housing Units by 

in 2010

* Statistically significantly differen
Components of the Census Coverage in 2

for Owners and Renters

(Occupied Housing Units Only)

0.6%

1.3% 1.4% 0.8% 1.5%

7.4%

1.6% 2.5%

13.2%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%

Owner Renter Vacant

ErroneoDuplicatErroneoReasonOmissio
CCM Reports

Summary Reports

Summary of the Estimates of Coverage Persons in the United StatesSummary of the Estimates of Coverage Housing Units
CCM Reports

Person Coverage

Net Coverage for the Household Population in the United StatesComponents of Census Coverage for tHousehold Population in the United Sta
CCM Reports

Housing Unit Coverage

Net Coverage for Housing Units in the United StatesComponents of Census Coverage for Housing Units in the United States