The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity
the search area. Differences in the methods of these two analyses could introduce biases into the estimates. In addition, there is evidence that the numbers of duplicates outside the A.C.E search area were underestimated in both studies for both the E-sample and the P-sample.
Fourth, the correlation bias adjustments incorporated strong assumptions that are not easily supported. A first assumption was that the DSE estimates for women (and children) were unbiased. The Census Bureau believes that the corrections for other known biases from the duplication studies and other analyses addressed the concern about possible bias in the DSE estimates for women, and the Revision II estimates for women accord reasonably well with the revised demographic analysis estimates (see Table 6.11). However, there remains a sizeable discrepancy between the Revision II estimates for children ages 0–9 and the revised demographic analysis estimates. A second assumption was that the adjustments for black men varied only by age group and not also by such categories as housing tenure, when it is plausible from findings about higher net undercount rates for renters compared with owners that correlation bias affected black male renters differently from black male owners. A third assumption was that the adjustments for nonblack men applied equally to all race/ethnicity groups in that broad category, when it is plausible that correlation bias affected Hispanics and other race groups differently from non-Hispanic whites. Of course, it was the absence of data that precluded the Census Bureau from making correlation bias adjustments for groups other than those defined by age and the simple dichotomy of blacks and all others.
Fifth, the Census Bureau had to pick a particular correlation bias adjustment model, but noted that alternative adjustment models could have been used. The selected model and the alternatives would all have produced estimates that were consistent with the demographic analysis sex ratios and the A.C.E. Revision II data at the national level, but they would have produced different subnational DSE estimates. The loss function analysis does not take account of the potential error from the choice of the correlation bias adjustment model, so we do not know the possible effects of this choice on subnational estimates.
Sixth, the use of different poststrata for the E-sample and the P-sample in the Revision II estimation could have increased the