Census 2010 Count Imputation: Collapsing Strategies Using Mean 

Squared Error 

Andrew Keller 

U.S. Census Bureau 

4600 Silver Hill Rd. 

Washington, DC 20233 

andrew.d.keller@census.gov 

The views expressed on statistical, methodological, technical, or operational issues are those of the author and 

not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. 

Abstract 

For the 2010 census, the count imputation (CI) procedure filled in missing household status and size for the small 

proportion of addresses (less than one half percent) where this information was unknown. The CI model partitioned 

records with complete information defined by household characteristics and geographic area into several cells. We 

incorporated household characteristics (structure type, enumerator type, nearest neighbor household type) and 

neighborhood geography (tract) as part of our cell definitions to ensure the unknown addresses were imputed from a 

distribution of complete addresses with similar characteristics. To account for the varying degrees of information 

from the unresolved addresses, we constructed three imputation types. 

The similarity of housing unit composition achieved by defining imputation cells by household characteristics and 

geography sometimes involved a tradeoff of creating cells with sparse counts of complete addresses. The essential 

goal of this research was to use research data from the 2000 Census to aid in developing collapsing procedures for 

cells with sparse counts. To measure the effectiveness of possible collapsing procedures, we used a mean squared 

error (MSE) approach. The MSE approach incorporated a composite estimator that accounted for the three types of 

imputation and estimated bias and variance. To assess different collapsing procedures, we performed simulations 

for assigning household status and size to missing data cases using two approaches for creating pseudo-missing data. 

This work outlines potential methodologies for collapsing sparse cells if more complete data addresses are 

necessary. In addition, it considers possible sizes for the maximum number of complete data addresses that 

constitute a sparse cell. 

Introduction 

Count imputation (CI) fills in missing household status and size for addresses where this information is unknown. 

In 2000, 679,381 (0.55%) of 122,534,761 addresses underwent count imputation. Following Census 2000, research 

identified an alternative scheme to nearest-neighbor hot deck used in the 2010 Census. Angueira (2008) documents 

the decision to implement the new methodology identified from the research. Kilmer (2008) provides detailed 

documentation of the research results. 

The new model partitions records defined by household characteristics and geographic area into several cells. These 

cells formed by these stratifying variables are used to build distributions from complete data addresses (addresses 

with known household status and size). The distributions are then used to impute status and size for missing data

addresses where this information is unknown. To implement this new methodology, we undertook research to better 

understand how to form cells to minimize error in the imputation process. The essential goal of this research is to 

compare collapsing procedures. To measure the effectiveness of possible collapsing procedures, we use a mean 

squared error (MSE) approach. In this paper, we do the following: 

Confirm that, when imputing population size for missing data addresses, using cells with more stratifying 

variables (and fewer complete data addresses) incurs less error than using cells with fewer stratifying 

variables (and more complete data addresses) 

Develop a methodology to collapse cells if more complete data addresses are necessary 

Compare possible thresholds for the number of complete data addresses constituting a sparse cell 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Calculate MSE for various combinations of collapsed cells and thresholds 

Background 

Count imputation methodology is applied to all non-group quarters addresses. Imputed addresses are referred to as

CI addresses while addresses not subject to count imputation are non-CI addresses. 

Classification Variables 

The count imputation model implemented in 2010 assigns structure type, enumerator type, and nearest-neighbor 

household type variables to CI and non-CI addresses. Household type is only assigned to non-CI addresses since the

household composition of CI addresses is unknown. The values for these variables are defined as follows: 

Table 1: Definition of Structure Type, Enumerator Type, Household Type, and Nearest-neighbor Household Type 

Variable Possible 

Values 

Comments 

Structure 

Type 

0 Single-Unit Structure 

1 Multi-Unit Structure 

Enumerator 

1 Type

0 Data was captured via personal or phone enumeration, such as Coverage Follow-up Telephone operation, 

Nonresponse Follow-up operation, Vacant/Delete Check operation. 

1 Data was captured via mail back from respondents, such as an initial mailing, a replacement mailing, or 

an update/leave operation. 

Household 

Type 

1 Household type is a Vacant Address. 

2 Household type is a Married Couple Family Household. 

3 Household type is an Other Family Household. 

4 Household type is a non-Family Household with the Householder Living Alone. 

5 Household type is a non-Family Household with the Householder Not Living Alone. 

6 Household type is an Occupied with Unknown Household Type. 

7 Household type is a Delete or Non-existent Address. 

Nearestneighbor 

Household 

Type 

1 Nearest Neighbor is a Vacant Address. 

2 Nearest Neighbor is a Married Couple Family Household. 

3 Nearest Neighbor is an Other Family Household. 

4 Nearest Neighbor is a non-Family Household with the Householder Living Alone. 

5 Nearest Neighbor is a non-Family Household with the Householder Not Living Alone. 

6 Nearest Neighbor is an Occupied with Unknown Household Type. 

7 Nearest Neighbor is a Delete or Non-existent Address. 

1 Enumerator Type refers to the last operation in which data about the address was collected. 

In addition, both CI and non-CI addresses are geographically mapped to a state, Local Census Office (LCO), county, 

and collection tract. Within each LCO, the combination of county and collection tract is unique. For the purposes 

of this work, we refer to the concatenation of county and collection tract as a “tract”. State, LCO, tract, structure 

type, enumerator type, and nearest-neighbor household type are the stratifying variables by which we form a cell. 

We refer to the state/LCO/tract/structure type/enumerator type/nearest-neighbor household type combination as a 

tract-cell. Every address (regardless of whether it is missing or complete) is classified into a particular tract-cell. 

The tract-cell emphasizes the geographic proximity of the CI and non-CI addresses. 

Three types of CI addresses exist: status imputation addresses, occupancy imputation addresses, and household size

imputation addresses. Status imputations result when the status and size of the CI address are unknown. We do not 

know if the address represents a valid, livable housing unit. As a result, in order to impute for status imputation 

addresses, all non-CI addresses (occupied, vacant, and delete) form the applicable distribution. Occupancy 

imputations result when the CI address is a housing unit (HU), but it is unknown whether the HU is occupied or 

vacant. As a result, in order to impute for occupancy imputation addresses, occupied and vacant non-CI addresses 

form the applicable distribution. Note that a vacant non-CI address has a household size of 0 while an occupied 

non-CI address implies that we know the household size is one or more persons. Household size imputations result 

when the address is an occupied HU, but household size is unknown. As a result, in order to impute for household 

size imputation addresses, all occupied non-CI addresses form the applicable distribution. It should be noted that the 

distributions also use some CI addresses as part of their formation. See Griffin (2007) for the derivation of the 

distributions for each imputation category. See Pritts (2010) for examples of these calculations. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methodology 

When a CI address exists within the tract-cell, we must first identify what constitutes a sufficient number of non-CI 

(donor) addresses from the tract-cell distribution for imputation. We call that sufficient number of donor addresses 

the threshold. In this research, we perform the analysis using various threshold values. If the number of sufficient 

donor addresses falls below the threshold, we use a distribution from the merged-cell to impute. We form the 

merged-cell by collapsing over a stratifying variable. 

The following example explains how we form the merged-cell. Suppose we have the following two tract-cells with 

different values of nearest-neighbor household type (NNHT), but the same values for state, LCO, tract, structure

type, and enumerator type. In this example, NNHT is the stratifying variable with tract-cell A having NNHT=1 and 

tract-cell B having NNHT=2. 

Tract-Cell A / NNHT=1 Tract-Cell B / NNHT=2 

Insufficient Number of Donor Addresses Sufficient Number of Donor Addresses 

Note that an insufficient number of donor addresses exists in tract-cell A. For this example, we collapse over NNHT 

and use the distribution of donor addresses from tract-cell A and tract-cell B to impute for tract-cell A’s CI 

addresses. However, since a sufficient number of donor addresses exists in tract-cell B, we use the distribution of 

donor addresses solely from tract-cell B to impute for its CI addresses. There are two items worth noting. First, 

while we use the distribution of donor addresses from both tract-cells to impute for the CI addresses in tract-cell A, 

we do not use the distribution of donor addresses in both tract-cells to impute for the CI addresses in tract-cell B. 

This is different than some imputation schemes that collapse both tract-cells together provided that one cell has an 

insufficient number of donor addresses. Second, in addition to testing various threshold values, another aspect of 

this research is geared towards identifying a proper stratifying variable. For this research, we try two stratifying 

variables to form the merged-cell. 

To have a metric with which to answer our questions, we use a MSE approach. MSE is the sum of the squared bias 

and the variance. In this research, the estimated squared bias quantifies the difference between the household size of 

non-CI addresses used as donors and CI addresses. The variance quantifies the variability of household size among 

non-CI addresses. We compare MSE for the tract-cell against the MSE for the merged-cell. If the MSE of the tractcell is less than the MSE of the merged-cell, the imputation should be performed using the distribution of non-CI 

addresses within the tract-cell. Conversely, if the MSE of the tract-cell is larger than the MSE of the merged-cell, 

the imputation should be performed using the distribution of non-CI addresses within the merged-cell. 

Rather than perform separate analysis for each type of CI address, the MSE approach uses a composite estimator to 

calculate bias and variance while accounting for the three types of imputation. Attachment A contains the 

derivations of MSE for the tract-cell and merged-cell. Attachment B provides a numerical example to demonstrate

the computations used in this research. 

Merged-Cell Possibilities 

We consider two merged-cell possibilities for this work. We believe it is important to maintain geographic 

proximity between CI addresses and the distribution of donor addresses. Consequently, the first merged-cell 

collapses over nearest-neighbor household type when forming the merged-cell. As a result, the merged-cell 

distribution is created from all donor addresses sharing the same state/LCO/tract/structure type/enumerator type. 

We call this the Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell. Meanwhile, the tract-cell is created from all donor addresses 

sharing the same state/LCO/tract/structure type/enumerator type/nearest-neighbor household type. 

The second merged-cell deemphasizes geographic proximity between CI addresses and the distribution of donor 

addresses. It does this by collapsing over tract when forming the merged-cell. As a result, the merged-cell 

distribution is created from all donor addresses sharing the same state/LCO/structure type/enumerator type/nearestneighbor household type. We call this the Tract Merged-Cell. In short, we believe this research will show that 

using the Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell (and maintaining geographic proximity) results in less error than using 

the Tract Merged-Cell. 

Designating Household Sizes for CI Addresses 

As can be seen from Attachment A, in order to do this MSE analysis we had to incorporate calculations including CI 

addresses. By definition, CI addresses have unknown household size. To compensate for this, we had to designate 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

some donor (or non-CI) addresses as CI addresses. These designated donor addresses are called pseudo-CI 

households. We completed this designation using two approaches to simulate missingness. These approaches 

resulted in two datasets. 

For the first dataset, we used a truth deck approach. To research different count imputation methodologies for 

Census 2010, a truth deck was created from Census 2000 data. The truth deck takes a small percentage (~1%) of 

donor households and changes them to pseudo-CI households. The pseudo-CI households are not randomly 

designated. Rather, the pseudo-CI housing units are those which have characteristics commonly associated with 

having household status or size or both missing. Testing of count imputation methodology is then completed using 

pseudo-CI households to represent CI addresses as if we know the true size of the CI household. We call this the 

Truth Deck CI Dataset. See Williams (2005) for more information on how the donor addresses are designated as 

pseudo-CI addresses. 

For the second dataset, we used an approach designating donor addresses processed last as the pseudo-CI addresses. 

The rationale behind this decision was that the latest donor addresses could have been CI addresses if the Census 

Bureau had closed its operations slightly earlier. We believe these cases may have composition somewhat similar to 

the actual CI addresses. We call this the Late CI Dataset. 

With the 2000 data, most non-CI addresses have a processing date designating when the household was entered into 

the census processing system. Within a tract-cell, we assigned the latest non-CI addresses as the pseudo-CI 

addresses provided that the non-CI address’ unit status was applicable for the CI address. For example: 

1) For status imputation addresses, all non-CI addresses were eligible to be designated as pseudo-CI addresses. 

2) For occupancy imputation addresses, both occupied units with household size information and vacant non-CI 

addresses were eligible to be designated as pseudo-CI addresses. 

3) For household size imputation addresses, only occupied non-CI addresses with household size information were 

eligible to be designated as pseudo-CI addresses. 

We geared this research towards understanding when to collapse cells with CI addresses to ensure a sufficient 

number of non-CI addresses to define a distribution. Consequently, we restricted this analysis only to tract-cells 

with both non-CI and CI addresses. With respect to the number of non-CI and CI addresses, three tract-cell 

combinations exist: tract-cells with more non-CI addresses than CI addresses, tract-cells with fewer non-CI 

addresses than CI addresses, and tract-cells with an equal number of non-CI and CI addresses. Because the 

imputation rate is only 0.55%, the first type is far more prevalent than the latter two. 

The Truth Deck CI Dataset is straightforward in its designation of pseudo-CI addresses from donor addresses. The 

example in Attachment B shows the relevant calculations based on formulas from Attachment A for the Truth Deck 

CI Dataset. However, the Late CI Dataset requires intricate data manipulation to designate pseudo-CI addresses

from donor addresses. To illustrate this, Attachment C presents examples of the three types of tract-cells discussed 

in the previous paragraph by showing how the donor and pseudo-CI addresses were designated for the Late CI 

Dataset. Note that we always retain the earliest non-CI address as a non-CI address, meaning not to assign this nonCI address as a pseudo-CI address even if the number of non-CI addresses is less than the number of CI addresses in 

the tract-cell. These examples also demonstrate how the relevant calculations from Attachment A were completed. 

In addition, exclusive to the Late CI Dataset, cells with one applicable non-CI address and CI addresses were 

excluded from this analysis. Attachment C provides the rationale for this decision via two examples. 

The Truth Deck CI Dataset and Late CI Dataset are implemented from different datasets created from the 2000 

Census results. In short, the non-CI addresses and CI addresses are different between the two datasets. Hence, it is 

not appropriate to compare across datasets. The comparison of interest involves comparing a) between tract-cell and 

merged-cell approaches within thresholds and b) among thresholds within each dataset. 

Results 

We use this research to help identify a suitable threshold to understand when to impute from the distribution of cases 

within the tract-cell as opposed to the distribution of cases within the broader merged-cell. However, there are

certain situations where we decide to use the tract- or merged-cell distribution to impute. This course of action 

depends on the number of donor addresses in the tract-cell. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For example, suppose we have 50 applicable donor addresses within a tract-cell. In this instance, we decide to 

always impute the CI addresses from the donor addresses within the tract-cell because a sufficient number of donor 

addresses exist. Alternatively, suppose we have only two applicable donor addresses in the tract-cell. In this 

instance, we decide not to impute CI addresses from the tract-cell based on the information of only two donor 

addresses. This research examines various threshold values to better understand outcomes with respect to bias, 

variance, and mean squared error for the count imputation methodology. 

Table 2 and Table 3 show results for the two ways of assigning missingness for pseudo-CI addresses, the Truth 

Deck CI Dataset and the Late CI Dataset respectively. Column (A) lists the three thresholds we examined (10, 20, 

30). Column (B) shows the applicable number of cells for which the number of donor addresses falls below the 

given threshold and has at least one CI address. For each Threshold and Applicable Cells pairing, Column C lists 

the three types of cells for computing the metrics: Tract-cell, Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell, and Tract MergedCell. Columns (D), (E), and (F) list the average squared bias, average variance, average MSE for each possible 

combination. Column (G) shows the proportion of times where the tract-cell has a lower MSE than the merged-cell. 

See Attachment D for the computation of the average squared bias and variance for the tract-cell, average squared 

bias and variance for the merged-cell, and percentage of cells in which the MSE for the tract-cell is less than the 

MSE for its corresponding merged-cell. 

For the Truth Deck CI Dataset and Threshold=10/12,555 Applicable Cells pairing, we compare the relevant 

statistics in columns (D), (E), and (F) describing the tract-cell against the relevant statistics describing the two 

merged-cells. For those 12,555 tract-cells, the average squared bias is 3.874, the average variance is 1.743, and the 

average MSE is 5.617. For those same tract-cells, when merging over nearest-neighbor type, the corresponding 

nearest-neighbor merged cells have an average squared bias of 2.926, an average variance of 2.501, and an average 

MSE of 5.427. For this combination, 58.15% of the 12,555 applicable tract-cells have an MSE less than that of its 

corresponding nearest-neighbor merged-cell. 

This result seems counterintuitive. Since the average MSE across all 12,555 tract-cells is greater than the average 

MSE across all corresponding nearest-neighbor merged-cells, one would expect that less than 50% of the tract-cells 

would have a lower MSE than its corresponding merged-cell. This does not occur. In short, a few tract-cells have

large squared bias and variance values. These few tract-cells inflate the average squared bias and variance even 

though the general trend across the 12,555 cells is that the MSE of the tract-cell is less than that of its corresponding 

nearest-neighbor merged-cell. 

By contrast, when merging over tract, the corresponding tract-merged cells have an average squared bias average 

squared bias of 3.025, an average variance of 2.776, and an average MSE of 5.801. For this combination, 63.26% of 

the 12,555 applicable tract-cells have an MSE less than that of its corresponding merged-cell. With the tract 

merged-cell, this result seems more sensible. That is, since the average MSE of the tract-cell is less than the average 

MSE of the tract-merged-cell, one would expect that more than 50% of the tract-cells would have a lower MSE than 

its corresponding tract merged-cell. This occurs. 

Next, for the Truth Deck CI Dataset and Threshold=20/29,553 Applicable Cells combination, we compare the 

relevant statistics in columns (D), (E), and (F) describing the tract-cell against the relevant statistics describing the 

two merged-cells. For those 29,553 tract-cells, the average squared bias is 3.518, the average variance is 2.266, and 

the average MSE is 5.784. For those same tract-cells, when merging over nearest-neighbor type, the corresponding 

merged cells have an average squared bias of 3.065, an average variance of 2.712, and an average MSE of 5.777. 

For this combination, 56.83% of the 29,553 applicable tract-cells have an MSE less than that of its corresponding 

nearest-neighbor merged-cell. By contrast, when merging over tract, their corresponding tract merged-cells have an 

average squared bias of 3.140, an average variance of 2.912, and an average MSE of 6.052. For this combination, 

62.44% of the 29,553 applicable tract-cells have an MSE less than that of its corresponding merged-cell. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2: Comparing MSE Results from Truth Deck CI Dataset

Threshold 

(A) 

Applicable 

Number of 

Tract-Cells 

(B) 

Cell Type 

(C) 

Average 

Squared 

Bias 

(D) 

Average 

Variance 

(E) 

Average 

MSE 

(F) 

% Cells where MSE 

of Tract-cell < MSE 

of Merged-cell for 

Applicable Cells 

(G) 

10 12,555 Tract-Cell 3.874 1.743 5.617 ---

Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell 2.926 2.501 5.427 58.15% 

Tract Merged-Cell 3.025 2.776 5.801 63.26% 

20 29,553 Tract-Cell 3.518 2.266 5.784 ---

Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell 3.065 2.712 5.777 56.83% 

Tract Merged-Cell 3.140 2.912 6.052 62.44% 

30 47,191 Tract-Cell 3.390 2.495 5.885 ---

Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell 3.100 2.813 5.913 56.26% 

Tract Merged-Cell 3.246 3.002 6.248 62.01% 

Table 3: Comparing MSE Results from Late CI Dataset 

Threshold 

(A) 

Applicable 

Number of 

Tract-Cells 

(B) 

Cell Type 

(C) 

Average 

Squared 

Bias 

(D) 

Average 

Variance 

(E) 

Average 

MSE 

(F) 

% Cells where MSE 

of Tract-cell < MSE 

of Merged-cell for 

Applicable Cells 

(G) 

10 20,749 Tract-Cell 109.414 2.198 111.612 ---

Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell 51.874 4.766 56.640 56.03% 

Tract Merged-Cell 33.321 6.793 40.114 61.11% 

20 43,069 Tract-Cell 76.131 2.924 79.055 ---

Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell 37.568 4.535 42.104 55.50% 

Tract Merged-Cell 25.577 5.809 31.386 61.43% 

30 63,180 Tract-Cell 58.050 3.280 61.330 ---

Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell 29.933 4.525 34.458 55.11% 

Tract Merged-Cell 22.428 5.555 27.983 61.15% 

A few results stand out from Tables 2 and 3. First, note that we have percentages greater than 50% in column (G). 

So, based on the defined methodology, we know that for all addresses (regardless merged-cell type or the dataset by 

which we designated household sizes for CI addresses), the MSE of the tract-cell is less than the MSE of its 

corresponding merged-cell more than half the time. In general, this result confirms that, when using either of the 

two types of merged-cells, we incur more error if we were to impute using the merged-cell. Furthermore, when 

comparing within each dataset, in column (G) we generally see that the percentage of cells where the MSE of the 

tract-cell is less than the MSE of the merged-cell decreases as the threshold increases. This shows that, as the 

threshold increases, more tract-cells will have larger MSE values than their corresponding merged cells. 

Second, when comparing the Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell type versus Tract Merged-Cell type for both 

datasets, the higher percentages seen in the Tract Merged-Cell type rows imply that the MSE is generally larger 

when we define the merged-cell by collapsing over tracts (Tract Merged-Cell type) rather than collapsing over 

nearest-neighbor household type (Nearest-Neighbor Merged-Cell type). This result suggests that it would be 

better to define the merged-cell by collapsing over nearest-neighbor household type. Or, more generally, it would 

be better to define the merged-cell by maintaining geographical proximity (in this case, tract). 

The final objective of this research was to develop the threshold for the minimum number of donor addresses when 

using the tract-cell to impute. From Tables 2 and 3, we generally observe that the tract-cells have smaller MSE 

values than their corresponding merged-cells at lower threshold levels. Consequently, it would be reasonable to 

require the lowest threshold possible in order to impute using the tract-cell. The extreme case would be requiring 

only one applicable non-CI address as a donor for imputing all CI addresses. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Keller (2010) shows that 17% of CI addresses are grouped together in clusters of length 11 or greater. Because CI 

addresses are often clustered together, it is debatable whether requiring only one donor address in the tract-cell to 

impute for all CI addresses would be prudent. If this were the case, the cluster of CI addresses would be imputed 

with the same household size. For example, suppose we set the requirement to be one donor address. Additionally, 

suppose we must impute in a tract-cell with ten CI addresses and one donor address with a household size of 9. For 

this hypothetical tract-cell, we would impute each of the ten CI addresses with a household size of 9. To avoid 

scenarios like above, we looked at 10 as the minimum threshold for our research. 

For the Truth Deck CI Dataset, as the threshold increases, the MSE increases within the tract-cell. Conversely, for 

the Late CI Dataset, as the threshold increases, the MSE decreases within the tract-cell. However, for both CI 

datasets, as the threshold increases, the squared bias decreases and the variance increases within the tract-cell. 

Therefore, if relying upon the MSE as a metric to decide upon the threshold, the conclusion is vague because of the 

inconsistency depending on the dataset used. 

Conclusions 

The purpose of this research was threefold. First, in the column (G) of Table 2 and Table 3 we confirmed that tractcells incur less error than merged-cells when imputing household size for CI addresses. This was to be expected 

since tract-cells are believed to be more homogenous than merged-cells with respect to household size. Second, we 

obtained ideas on how to best collapse tract-cells to form merged-cells. We learned that it is best to define the 

merged-cell by collapsing over nearest-neighbor household type rather than by collapsing over tract. Last, we 

sought to identify a threshold for the number of donor addresses in a tract-cell in order to impute from the tract-cell. 

The conclusions stemming from these results are less clear. With respect to MSE, we produce different conclusions 

on where to set the threshold. This depends on the CI Dataset employed. 

With regard to future work, two items stand out. First, we used MSE as our metric of evaluation for this research. It 

is possible to use other metrics. For example, instead of doing the analysis using squared loss over the nation, we 

can analyze our results by calculating absolute loss with respect to state population counts. Second, instead of 

organizing the latest non-CI addresses by capture date and designating them as pseudo-CI addresses, we could have 

designated the pseudo-CI addresses by type of operation. That is, we could have assigned all the pseudo-CI 

addresses if they were part of a certain census operation like Non-Response Followup. 

References 

Angueira, T. (2008). “Choice of Count Imputation Methodology for the 2010 Census,” DSSD 2010 DECENNIAL 

CENSUS PROGRAM DECISION MEMORANDUM SERIES No. 22. 

Griffin, R. (2007). “2010 Count Imputation Research - Modified Imputation Methodology Using Spatial Modeling 

Results,” DSSD 2006 CENSUS TEST MEMORANDUM SERIES J2–13. 

Keller, A. (2010). “Census 2010 Count Imputation: Issues Concerning Imputation Levels and Clustering,” DSSD 

2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS MEMORANDUM SERIES J–07. 

Kilmer, A. (2008). “2010 Census Count Imputation Research - Results and Analysis of Count Imputation 

Methodologies for All States,” DSSD 2006 CENSUS TEST MEMORANDUM SERIES J2 - 21. 

Pritts, M. (2010). “Census 2010: Overview of Count Imputation,” DSSD 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS 

MEMORANDUM SERIES J–08. 

Williams, T.R. (2005). “2010 Count Imputation Research – Methodology for Developing the Truth Deck,” DSSD 

2006 CENSUS TEST MEMORANDUM SERIES J2–03. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment A 

The following methodology was developed by Patrick Cantwell of the Census Bureau. 

To begin, let k refer to the tract-cell and M refer to the merged-cell. Therefore, we merge if: 

2 2 (1)

k M

k k M M

MSE MSE

Bias Variance Bias Variance

Now, rewriting the bias, let i k,

y refer to the total number of person records in a housing unit i in tract-cell k, 

,

ˆ

i k y

refer to the estimate of total number of person records in a housing unit i in tract-cell k, 

Yk

k

u the set of non-CI housing 

units in tract-cell k, and the true unknown total number of person records in housing units in tract-cell k. We 

condition on k

u because it is a known total for each tract-cell. Then, 

, , , ,

, , , , , ,

( | ) ˆ

 | ˆ

 | | ˆ ˆ

 

k k k k

i k i k k i k i k

i non CI i CI i non CI i CI

i k i k k i k i k i k k i k

i non CI i CI i non CI i CI i CI i CI

Bias E y u Y

E y y u y y

y E y u y y E y u y

, ,

 | ˆ (2) i k k i k

i CI i CI

E y u y

It’s important to note that we have three separate types of count imputation addresses: status imputations, occupancy 

imputations, and household size imputations. As a result, we must compensate for all three types when we make the 

decision to merge cells. So continuing from (2), 

, ,

(1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3)

, , , , , ,

ˆ |

 | | | (3) ˆ ˆ ˆ

k i k k i k

i CI i CI

i k k i k i k k i k i k k i k

i SI i SI i OccI i OccI i HHSI i HHSI

Bias E y u y

E y u y E y u y E y u y

where 

(1)

,

(1)

, , : is a status, occupancy, or household size pseudo-CI address in cell 

ˆ : the estimate of total number of person records in tract-cell k imputed from status imputation

:

i k

k

i SI i OccI k i HHSI i k

y

u

(2)

,

(2)

the set of non-CI housing units in tract-cell 

ˆ : the estimate of total number of person records in tract-cell k imputed from occupancy imputation

: the set of non-CI, non-delete housing unit

i k

k

k

y

u

(3)

,

s in tract-cell delete cases are excluded since occupancy imputation 

implies that we know this address is a housing unit but we are unsure whether it is occupied or vacant

ˆ : the estimate of t i k

k

y

(3)

otal number of person records in tract-cell k imputed from 

household size imputation

: the set of non-CI, occupied housing units with household size information in tract-cell delete and vacant c k

u k ases 

are excluded since household size imputation implies that we know this address is an occupied housing unit but we are 

unsure of its household size 

Looking at the first term in (3), we know that the total expected number of person records added by status 

imputation in tract-cell k is the average of all non-CI addresses multiplied by the number of addresses requiring 

status imputation. That is, 

(1) (1) (1)

, ,

ˆ |

i k k k non CI k

i SI

E y u SI y where k

SI refers to the number of status imputation addresses in cell k and (1)

non CI k,

y

refers to the average household size of all non-CI addresses in cell k. 

Now, looking at the second term in (3), we know that the total number of person records added by status imputation 

in tract-cell k is the average household size of all status imputation addresses multiplied by the number of addresses 

requiring status imputation. That is, 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)

i k k SI k , ,

i SI

y SI y where SI k,

y refers to the average household size of all status imputation addresses in cell k. 

Note that since the household size of any imputation address is unknown, for this research we use pseudo-CI 

addresses to form the basis for any calculations dealing with CIs. So, to calculate SI k,

y : 

, ,

1

SI k i k

k i SI

y y

SI

. 

Similar calculations are completed for: 

a) (2) (2) (2) (2)

, , , ,

ˆ |

i k k i k k non CI k k OccI k

i OccI i OccI

E y u y OccI y OccI y

where 

OccI k

(2)

non CI k,

y

OccI k,

y

: the number of occupancy imputation addresses in cell k 

: the average household size of all non-delete, non-CI addresses in cell k. 

: the average household size of all occupancy imputation addresses in cell k. 

b) (3) (3) (3) (3)

, , , ,

ˆ |

i k k i k k non CI k k HHSI k

i HHSI i HHSI

E y u y HHSI y HHSI y

where 

HHSIk

(3)

non CI k,

y

HHSI k,

y

: the number of household size imputation addresses in cell k 

: the average household size of all occupied non-CI addresses in cell k. 

: the average household size of all household size imputation addresses in cell k. 

Hence, we can rewrite (3) as: 

(1) (1) (1) (2) (2) (2) (3) (3) (3)

, , , , , ,

(1) (2)

, , , ,

ˆ ˆ ˆ | | |

 

k i k k i k i k k i k i k k i k

i SI i SI i OccI i OccI i HHSI i HHSI

k non CI k k SI k k non CI k k OccI k

Bias E y u y E y u y E y u y

SI y SI y OccI y OccI y (3)

, ,

 (4) HHSI y HHSI y k non CI k k HHSI k

Now, the total number of CI addresses is the sum of Status, Occupancy, and Household Size imputation addresses. 

That is, CI SI OccI HHSI k k k k . So, we can rewrite (4) as: 

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

 

 

k k non CI k k SI k k non CI k k OccI k k non CI k k HHSI k

k non CI k SI k k non CI k OccI k k non CI k HHSI k

Bias SI y SI y OccI y OccI y HHSI y HHSI y

SI y y OccI y y HHSI y y

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

 (5) k k k

k non CI k SI k non CI k OccI k non CI k HHSI k

k k k

SI OccI HHSI CI y y y y y y

CI CI CI

Similarly, for the merged-cell we can write: 

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

k k k

M k non CI M SI k non CI M OccI k non CI M HHSI k

k k k

SI OccI HHSI Bias CI y y y y y y

CI CI CI

Where (1) (2) (3)

,,,

, , non CI M non CI M non CI M yyy are defined analogously over the merged-cell. 

Looking at the variance term in (1), we assume that the CI addresses are independent of one another. This is 

because we make an independent random draw to impute for each CI address. As a result, we can write: 

, , , ,

ˆ ˆ ˆ | | | (6) k i k i k k i k k i k k

i non CI i CI i CI i CI

Variance Var y y u Var y u Var y u

Furthermore, we assume the imputed result for each CI address follows as from a simple random sample from the 

non-CI addresses within the cell. As a result, we can write the variance for each individual CI address as: 

2 2

, '2

, ,

1 1

( | ) 1 ˆ

1 1

k k non CI k

k k k

non CI k non CI k

S S n

Var y u S

n n

where '2

k

S

population and is defined as 

,

2

'2

, , ,

, 1

1

non CI k n

k non CI k i non CI k

non CI k i

S y y

n

reflects the addresses in the cell considered as a 

. 
 

 

 

 

 

Now, rewriting (6) including all three types of imputation: 

(1) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3)

, , , ,

'2(1) '2(2) '2(3)

ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ | | | | 

 

k i k k i k k i k k i k k

i CI i SI i OccI i HHSI

k k k k k k

Variance Var y u Var y u Var y u Var y u

SI S OccI S HHSI S (7)

where 

(1)

,

2

'2(1) (1) (1)

(1) , , ,

, 1

1

non CI k n

k non CI k i non CI k

non CI k i

S y y

n

and similarly for '2(2) '2(3)

,

k k S S

Continuing from (7), we can write: 

'2(1) '2(2) '2(3)

'2(1) '2(2) '2(3)

 

k k k k k k k

k k k

k k k k

k k k

Variance SI S OccI S HHSI S

SI OccI HHSI CI S S S

CI CI CI

Similarly, for the merged-cell we can write: 

k k k '2(1) '2(2) '2(3)

M k M M M

k k k

SI OccI HHSI Variance CI S S S

CI CI CI

Overall, for the merge rule, we can rewrite: 

2 2

2 2

2

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

 

k k M M

M k k M

k k k

k non CI M SI k non CI M OccI k non CI M HHSI k

k k k

k

k non C

k

Bias Variance Bias Variance

Bias Bias Variance Variance

SI OccI HHSI CI y y y y y y

CI CI CI

SI CI y

CI

2

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

'2(1) '2(2) '2(3) '2(1) '2(2)

 

k k

I k SI k non CI k OccI k non CI k HHSI k

k k

k k k k k

k k k k k M M

k k k k k

OccI HHSI

y y y y y

CI CI

SI OccI HHSI SI OccI H CI S S S CI S S

CI CI CI CI CI

'2(3)

2

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

(1) (2)

, , , ,

k

M

k

k k k

non CI M SI k non CI M OccI k non CI M HHSI k

k k k

k k k

non CI k SI k non CI k OccI k non CI

k k k

HSI S

CI

SI OccI HHSI

y y y y y y

CI CI CI

SI OccI HHSI

y y y y y

CI CI CI

2

(3)

, ,

1 '2(1) '2(2) '2(3) '2(1) '2(2) '2(3)

 

k HHSI k

k k k k k k

k k k M M M

k k k k k k k

y

SI OccI HHSI SI OccI HHSI S S S S S S

CI CI CI CI CI CI CI
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment B 

The following example is provided to illustrate the application of formulas given in Attachment A. 

Suppose we have the tract-cell with three CI addresses, two status imputation addresses and one occupancy 

imputation address. Suppose further that the tract-cell has 16 non-CI addresses with the following distribution of 

addresses: 

Delete Size=1 Size=2 Size=3 Size=4 Size=5 Size=6 Vacant 

1 2 4 3 2 1 1 2 

Using the notation from Attachment A then, 

2, 1, 0 k k k SI OccI HHSI

(1) (2) (3)

, , ,

2.375, 2.533, 2.923 non CI k non CI k non CI k y y y

'2(1) '2(2) '2(3) 2.984, 2.782, 2.071 k k k S S S

Now, suppose that we can designate the household sizes for the CI addresses. We explain the methodology to 

designate household sizes for the CI addresses on pages 2 and 3 in the main text. Suppose that the two status 

imputation addresses are size 3 and 4 respectively. Suppose that the occupancy imputation address is size 2. Then, 

(1) (2) (3)

, , , , , ,

2 1 3 (2.375 3.5) (2.533 2)

3 3

 1.7167

k k k

k k non CI k SI k non CI k OccI k non CI k HHSI k

k k k

SI OccI HHSI Bias CI y y y y y y

CI CI CI

'2(1) '2(2) '2(3)

2 1 3 (2.984) (2.782)

3 3

 8.751

k k k

k k k k k

k k k

SI OccI HHSI Variance CI S S S

CI CI CI

Similar calculations can be done for considering the merged-cell data. 2

BiasM

and VarianceM
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

k

SI

OccI k

HHSIk

SI k,

y

(1)

non CI k,

y

SI k,

y

OccI k,

y

(2)

non CI k,

y

OccI k,

y

HHSI k,

y

(3)

non CI k,

y

HHSI k,

y

Attachment C 

Attachment C shows examples of data manipulation for cells that were analyzed via the Late CI Method. Example 1 

shows a tract-cell with more non-CI addresses than CI addresses. Example 2 shows a tract-cell with fewer non-CI 

addresses than CI addresses. Example 3 shows a tract-cell with an equal number of non-CI and CI addresses. 

Example 4 and 5 show tract-cells where only one non-CI address is applicable and explains why these cells are

excluded from the analysis. 

Example 1 – Tract-Cell with more non-CI addresses than CI addresses 

This is an example tract-cell with 15 non-CI addresses and 5 CI addresses (2 status imputation addresses, 2 

occupancy imputation addresses, and 1 household size imputation address). 

Selected As Pseudo-CI Address by Type 

ID CI Address Household (HH) Type HH Size Return Date Status Occupancy HH Size 

1 Status Imputation 

2 Status Imputation 

3 Household Size Imputation 

4 non-CI address Occupied 2 22-Mar 

5 non-CI address Occupied 1 23-Mar 

6 non-CI address Occupied 1 24-Mar 

7 non-CI address Delete 0 25-Mar 

8 non-CI address Vacant 0 26-Mar 

9 non-CI address Vacant 0 27-Mar 

10 non-CI address Occupied 2 28-Mar 

11 non-CI address Occupied 4 29-Mar 

12 Occupancy Imputation 

13 non-CI address Vacant 0 30-Mar 

14 non-CI address Occupied 3 31-Mar 

15 non-CI address Occupied 4 1-Apr 

16 Occupancy Imputation 

17 non-CI address Vacant 0 10-Apr 

18 non-CI address Occupied 2 11-Apr Pseudo-CI 

19 non-CI address Occupied 6 12-Apr Pseudo-CI Pseudo-CI Pseudo-CI 

20 non-CI address Delete 0 13-Apr Pseudo-CI 

Using the notation from Attachment A, we give the values for all relevant terms in the tract-cell with an explanation: 

Table C.1 – Values for Relevant Terms in Example 1 

Term Value Explanation 

2 ID #1 and ID #2 are status imputation addresses. 

2 ID #12 and ID #16 are occupancy imputation addresses. 

1 ID #3 is a household size imputation address. 

1.462 This is the average household size of ID #4 through #11, ID #13 through #15, ID #17 through #18. Note that ID #19 through #20 are 

excluded from the calculation because they are part of the calculation of . 

3 ID #19 and #20 are the two latest non-CI addresses. Hence, they are part of this calculation. 

1.545 This is the average household size of ID #4 through #6, ID #8 through #11, ID #13 through #15, and ID #17. Note that ID #18 through #19 

are excluded from the calculation because they are part of the calculation of . ID#7 is excluded from this calculation because it is a 

delete address and not applicable. 

4 ID #18 and #19 are the two applicable latest non-CI addresses. Hence, they are part of this calculation. ID#20 is excluded because it is a 

delete address and not applicable. 

2.375 This is the average household size of ID #4 through #6, ID #10 through #11, ID #14 through #15, and ID #18. Note that ID#19 is excluded 

from the calculation because it is part of the calculation of . ID#7 is excluded from this calculation because it is a delete address 

and not applicable. ID#8,9,13,17 are excluded from this calculation because they are vacant addresses and not applicable. 

6 ID #19 is the latest applicable non-CI addresses. Hence, it is part of this calculation. ID#20 is excluded because it is a delete address and 

not applicable. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)

non CI k,

y

(2)

non CI k,

y

OccI k,

y

(3)

non CI k,

y

HHSI k,

y

k

SI

OccI k

HHSIk

(1)

non CI k,

y

SI k,

y

(2)

non CI k,

y

OccI k,

y

(3)

non CI k,

y

HHSI k,

y

Example 2 – Tract-Cell with fewer non-CI addresses than CI addresses 

This is an example tract-cell with 3 non-CI addresses and 4 CI addresses (all status imputation addresses). 

ID CI Address Household (HH) Type HH Size Return Date Status Occupancy HH Size 

1 Status Imputation None Exist None Exist 

2 Status Imputation 

3 Status Imputation 

4 Status Imputation 

5 non-CI address Occupied 7 23-Mar 

6 non-CI address Occupied 4 24-Mar Pseudo-CI 

7 non-CI address Vacant 0 12-Jun Pseudo-CI 

Using the notation from Attachment A, we give the values for all relevant terms in the tract-cell with an explanation: 

Table C.2 – Values for Relevant Terms in Example 2 

Term Value Explanation 

k

SI 2 ID #1 through ID #4 are status imputation addresses. However, we only have 2 non-CI addresses which are reassigned as pseudo-CI 

addresses (ID #6 and #7). 

OccI k

HHSIk

0 None exist 

0 None exist 

7 Since there are more CI addresses than applicable non-CI addresses, the earliest non-CI address is kept as an average for the non-CI 

addresses. In this case, ID#5 is kept. 

SI k,

y

2 ID #6 and #7 are the two latest non-CI addresses. Hence, they are part of this calculation. 

3.667 There are no occupancy imputation addresses so no non-CI addresses are removed. 

0 There are no occupancy imputation addresses. Hence the value is 0. 

5.5 There are no household size imputation addresses so no non-CI addresses are removed for that reason. ID#7 is excluded from this 

calculation because it is a delete address and not applicable. 

0 There are no household size imputation addresses. Hence the value is 0. 

Example 3 – Tract-cell with an equal number of non-CI and CI addresses 

This is an example tract-cell with 2 non-CI addresses and 2 CI addresses (all occupancy imputation addresses). 

Selected As Pseudo-CI Address by Type 

ID CI Address Household (HH) Type HH Size Return Date Status Occupancy HH Size 

1 Occupancy Imputation None exist None exist 

2 Occupancy Imputation 

3 non-CI address Occupied 5 24-Mar 

4 non-CI address Vacant 0 12-Jun Pseudo-CI 

Using the notation from Attachment A, we give the values for all relevant terms in the tract-cell with an explanation: 

Table C.3 – Values for Relevant Terms in Example 3 

Term Value Explanation 

0 None exist 

1 ID #1 and ID #2 are occupancy imputation addresses. However, we only have 1 non-CI address which is reassigned as a pseudo-CI address 

(ID #4). 

0 None exist 

2.5 There are no status imputation addresses so no non-CI addresses are removed for that reason. Hence, the average is determined from ID#3 

and ID#4. 

0 There are no status imputation addresses. Hence the value is 0. 

5 Since the number of CI addresses and applicable non-CI addresses are equal, the earliest non-CI address is kept as an average for the non-CI 

addresses. In this case, ID#3 is kept. 

0 ID #3 is the latest non-CI addresses. Hence, it is the only pseudo-CI address. 

5 There are no household size imputation addresses so no non-CI addresses are removed for that reason. ID#4 is excluded from this 

calculation because it is a vacant address and not applicable. 

0 There are no household size imputation addresses. Hence the value is 0. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Example 4 – Tract-cell with one applicable non-CI address and CI addresses that is excluded from the analysis 

This is an example tract-cell with 2 non-CI addresses and 1 CI address (household size imputation address). 

Selected As Pseudo-CI Address by Type 

ID CI Address Household (HH) Type HH Size Return Date Status Occupancy HH Size 

1 non-CI address Occupied 3 24-Mar None exist None exist Pseudo-CI 

2 Household Size Imputation 

3 non-CI address Vacant 0 24-Jun 

In this situation, this cell has a household size imputation. As a result, the only applicable non-CI address is ID#1. 

ID#3 is not applicable because it is a vacant. 

Consequently, have the same value of 3 and the bias would be 0. As a result, this cell is 

excluded from the analysis. That means it is excluded as a tract-cell for the computations in Attachment D. 

Example 5 – Tract-cell with one applicable non-CI address and CI addresses that is excluded from the analysis 

This is an example tract-cell with 4 non-CI addresses and 2 CI addresses (both occupancy imputation addresses). 

(3)

non CI k,

y and HHSI k,

y

Selected As Pseudo-CI Address by Type 

ID CI Address Household (HH) Type HH Size Return Date Status Occupancy HH Size 

1 non-CI address Delete 0 12-Jun None exist None exist 

2 Occupancy Imputation 

3 Occupancy Imputation 

4 non-CI address Occupied 5 24-Jun Pseudo-CI 

5 non-CI address Delete 0 25-Jun 

6 non-CI address Delete 0 26-Jun 

In this situation, this cell has two occupancy imputations. As a result, the only applicable non-CI address is ID#4. 

ID#5, ID#6, and ID#1 are not applicable because they are deletes. 

Consequently, have the same value of 5 and the bias would be 0. As a result, this cell is 

excluded from the analysis. That means it is excluded as a tract-cell for the computations in Attachment D. 

(2)

non CI k,

y and OccI k,

y
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment D 

The following formulas explain the statistics in Table 2. The , , , Bias Variance Bias Variance k k M M terms are defined 

in Attachment A. 

Column (D) 

The Tract-cell average squared bias is determined as follows: 

2

 Tract-cells Tract-cell Average Squared Bias

#of Tract-cells

k

k

Bias

The Merged-cell average squared bias is determined as follows: 

2

Merged-cell Average Squared Bias Tract-cells

#of Tract-cells

M

M

Bias

Column (E) 

The Tract-cell average variance is determined as follows: 

 Tract-cells Tract-cell Average Variance

#of Tract-cells

k

k

Variance

The Merged-cell average variance is determined as follows: 

Merged-cell Average Variance Tract-cells

#of Tract-cells

M

M

Variance

Column (F) 

The Tract-cell average MSE is determined as follows: 

2

 Tract-cells Tract-cell Average MSE

#of Tract-cells

k k

k

Bias Variance

The Merged-cell average MSE is determined as follows: 

2

Merged-cell Average MSE Tract-cells

#of Tract-cells

M M

M

Bias Variance

Column (G) 

The % of cells where MSE of the Tract-cell is less than the MSE of the Merged-cell is computed as follows: 

For each Tract-cell k, the following comparison is made: 

- If 2 2 Bias Variance Bias Variance k k M M then 1 k

, else 0 k

Then, we take the average over all the k: 

% of cells where MSE of the Tract-cell is less than the MSE of the Merged-cell = Tract-cells

#of Tract-cells

k

k