The Bicentennial Census New Directions for Methodology in 1990: 30th Anniversary Edition (2015) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Taking the Census I: Improving the Count
5 Taking the Census I: Improving the Count
Pages 153-214
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 153... ...
Similarly, the panel was asked to consider the uses of sampling for the count and of administrative records as means of reducing costs compared with the 1980 methodology. Most programs directed toward coverage improvement are expensive in absolute terms and often in terms of the cost per person or housing unit identified and added to the census.
|
From page 154... ...
The chapter then reviews the history of efforts directed specifically toward coverage improvement in both the 1970 and 1980 censuses and the Census Bureau's plans for testing coverage improvement methods for 1990. Finally, the chapter presents the panel's recommendations for priority areas for research and testing with regard to coverage improvement.
|
From page 155... ...
Demographic Analysis Demographic analysis provides independent estimates of the national population by age, race, and sex that, when compared with the census counts for these categories, result in estimates of net undercount. (See Chapter 4 for a description of the methodology, which is based on birth and death records and estimates of net immigration.)
|
From page 156... ...
Finally, net undercount rates from demographic analysis for specific age-race-sex subgroups reflect reporting errors, such as age overstatement or understatement, as well as coverage errors per se. The Post-Enumeration Program The Post-Enumeration Program (PEP)
|
From page 157... ...
20 Black male 15 10 Black female 5 Percentage 0 White and White and –5 other female other male –10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 and over Years of Age FIGURE 5.1 Percentage net undercount rates by age, race, and sex: 1980 census (legally resident population, determined from 157 demographic analysis)
|
From page 158... ...
Categorizing the population by ethnicity (race and Hispanic origin) , the gross omission rates for blacks, Puerto Ricans, and "other" Hispanics (those not classified as Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto ican)
|
From page 159... ...
Similarly central cities of both large and small SMSAs with mail nonreturn rates of 35 percent or higher had gross omission rates more than three times the average, while those cities with mail nonreturn rates below 10 percent had below-average rates. Mail nonreturn rate appears to be a good indicator of gross omissions.
|
From page 160... ...
and income level, blacks filing single returns at all income levels and most Hispanics filing single returns had gross omission rates more than twice the average, as did blacks fi ling joint returns with low incomes (less than $8,000) and most H ispanics filing joint returns.
|
From page 161... ...
That is, are some population groups apparently getting easier to count and others harder to count? Any time patterns that can be discerned have implications for choice of coverage improvement methods in the next census.
|
From page 162... ...
20 162 15 10 5 Percentage 0 1970 1980 –5 1960 –10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 and over Years of Age FIGURE 5.2 Percentage net undercount rates by age for black men: 1960-1980 censuses (determined from demographic analysis)
|
From page 163... ...
Appendix 5.1 provides a full description. Housing Coverage Studies Rates of omission of housing units do not necessarily translate into comparable rates of missed persons; nevertheless, studies of completeness of coverage of housing units conducted in every census since 1950 are another source of information on relative rates of gross omissions in the population.
|
From page 164... ...
Appendix 5.1 reviews findings from the 1980 census and previous censuses on characteristics of missed housing units. COVERAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS: PAST EXPERIENCE In past censuses, the Census Bureau has implemented programs designed to improve coverage.
|
From page 165... ...
Special efforts to improve enumerator performance in the 20 largest cities were also adopted. The Census Bureau also implemented specific coverage improvement programs designed to add housing units and persons to the count, most of which were also used in the 1980 census.
|
From page 166... ...
N.A. Subtotal 3,108 4.5 9,234 4.5 8,993 6.88c 2.35c Programs to improve housing unit count during data collection National Vacancy Check __d __d 1,069 0.5 225 __ 0.21 Post-Enumeration Post Office Check (PEPOC)
|
From page 167... ...
cPer housing unit cost calculated as $8,993/1,308; per person cost calculated as $8,993/3,834; i.e., denominator includes only housing unit or person additions for programs for which total costs are available. dThe National Vacancy Check resulted in 250,000 housing units or 0.4% of the total being reclassified from vacant to occupied (Bureau of the Census, 1973c:15)
|
From page 168... ...
The Postal Service checked the address lists developed by enumerators for completeness and Census Bureau staff followed up a sample of missed addresses in the field. On the basis of this effort, housing units and persons were added to the census records via imputation.
|
From page 169... ...
proved cost-effective as well, although these programs added a much smaller percentage to the population count than the address check programs. The National Vacancy Check added 0.5 percent to the population count and reclassified 0.4 percent of total housing units from vacant to occupied.
|
From page 170... ...
For the latter universe, the added persons shown in Table 5.2 represent about 0.3 percent of the total. The Census Bureau estimated that the Report of Living Quarters Check was erroneously omitted in one of three cases; if the check had been made for all applicable addresses, at least 0.3 percent would have been added to the total population count (Bureau of the Census, 1974b:4)
|
From page 171... ...
(2) The Census Bureau made a deliberate decision to conduct most specific coverage improvement programs on a nationwide basis and to avoid the use of sampling and imputation.
|
From page 172... ...
HU Person Panel A: Programs to improve address list prior to data collection Advance Post Office Check (APOC) 2,000a 2.3 5,120 2.3 6,970 3.49 1.36 Precanvass 2,360b 2.7 6,030 2.7 11,800 5.00 1.96 Casing and Time of Delivery Checks 2,060 2.3 5,280 2.3 9,290 4.51 1.76 Subtotal 6,420 7.3 16,430 7.3 28,060 4.37 1.71 Panel B: Programs to improve housing unit count during data collection Local Review 53c 0.1 76c __ 4,310 44.74e 31.20e Post-Enumeration Post Office Check (PEPOC)
|
From page 173... ...
Hence when evaluating the cost-effectiveness of such programs in adding to the count of persons or housing units, care should be taken to use the appropriate denominator, as noted in the text. Detailed percentages may not add to subtotals due to rounding.
|
From page 174... ...
The Census Bureau provided preliminary housing unit and also population counts to local officials after completion of the first stage of follow-up. Officials reviewed the counts and indicated problem areas for checking.
|
From page 175... ...
This operation was similar to the 1970 Missed Persons Campaign, except that, instead of relying on community organizations, the Census Bureau sent special enumerators about 6 weeks after Census Day to places frequented by transients who might otherwise be missed. The operation was limited to central ized (city)
|
From page 176... ...
Other programs, such as Local Review and the Precanvass, also produced transfers as well as net additions. Evaluation of Coverage Improvement Experience in 1980 Looking at the 1980 coverage improvement programs, it appears evident that programs carried out prior to Census Day to check the address list were important in improving the count and low in cost in terms of dollars per housing unit added to the list.
|
From page 177... ...
CENSUS BUREAU PLAN FOR TESTING COVERAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS FOR 1990 The Census Bureau's testing program for the 1990 census began in spring 1984 with tests in several urban and rural localities of improved methods of address list compilation -- a key element in achieving completeness of coverage (Bureau of the Census, 1984b)
|
From page 178... ...
The Census Bureau proposes to examine the combination of questions used in 1980 to check within household coverage to determine if reword ing, new instructions, or other changes will increase their effective ness, and also to test adding questions about multiple residences that could help minimize overcounting. The Census Bureau also proposes to test improvements in the Whole Household Usual Home Elsewhere program.
|
From page 179... ...
This research can contribute importantly to the planning of special coverage improvement efforts for the next census and also to the planning of evaluation programs to determine the completeness of coverage that was achieved. At the present time, the undercount research staff at the Census Bureau is continuing investigation of gross undercount and overcount with the data from the Post-Enumeration Program including analyzing enumeration districts that contain nonmatched cases (i.e., gross omission cases in the Current Population Survey)
|
From page 180... ...
ISSUES IN COVERAGE IMPROVEMENT: QUESIONNAIRE CONTENT Next the panel discusses priorities for research and testing of coverage improvement programs, beginning with consideration of items on the questionnaire that relate to coverage. These items include the questions on race and Hispanic origin as well as questions designed specifically to help coverage, such as number of living quarters or addresses in the respondent's building.
|
From page 181... ...
(2) Whether, for considerations of coverage improvement, minimizing respondent burden, or other reasons, part of the race and ethnicity information could more appropriately be collected on a sample basis.
|
From page 182... ...
This change reflected a joint OMB-Census Bureau decision that the great majority of the Hispanics who responded in this way understood the race question and did not consider themselves white. Some data users were critical of this decision, which they argued impairs the comparability of the 1980 data with the data from the 1940 through 1970 censuses.
|
From page 183... ...
This was not inappropriate, but it does raise the question of whether the questions on race and Hispanic origin could be combined. A related question is the possible need for information on additional ethnic or geographic categories in 1990.
|
From page 184... ...
Arguing against this is the probable difficulty of obtaining accurate short-form responses without listing all the detailed categories. There is no clear evidence that inclusion of detailed race and Hispanic origin questions on the short form in 1980 was a barrier to a complete count.
|
From page 185... ...
As a case in point, prior to the 1980 census the Census Bureau conducted numerous tests of different wording of the question on Hispanic origin. The various pretests and dress rehearsals tried out variations of this question, as did the 1976 National Content Test, which had a sample size of 28,000 housing units.
|
From page 186... ...
We recommend that the Census Bureau, in addi tion to other methods that it has traditionally employed, use the tech nique of focus group discussions as one means to develop questions on particularly sensitive items such as race and ethnicity. Comparability Considerations Although changes in question wording and categories for the race and ethnicity items may be necessary to improve the information, it is vitally important to strive for historical comparability of race and ethnicity data from one census to the next to the extent possible.
|
From page 187... ...
We recommend that the Census Bureau, the N ational Center for Health Statistics, and other relevant federal agen cies work closely together to design questions and response editing rules on race and ethnicity that minimize conceptual differences be tween census and vital statistics records to the extent feasible. The Office of Management and Budget should act as necessary to facilitate such coordination.
|
From page 188... ...
. An edit was performed to check that the number of names listed in this household roster agreed with FIGURE 5.5 Coverage questions in the 1980 census.
|
From page 189... ...
. The Census Bureau was unable to evaluate the effectiveness of the household roster (Question 1)
|
From page 190... ...
homes, and persons with more than one usual place of residence. A Specific Suggestion for a Coverage Improvement Question In the 1977 pretest in Oakland, California, the Census Bureau tested the concept of "network" or "multiplicity" response rules for coverage evaluation (Sirken et al., 1978)
|
From page 191... ...
We recommend, as one procedure to consider for improving coverage of hard-to-count groups, that the Census Bureau pretest a question asking parents for names and addresses of children who are not part of the household. This question should be included in the 1986 pretests.
|
From page 192... ...
Because the multiplicity question appears promising for coverage improvement and also relates to other coverage questions that the Census Bureau is proposing to test in 1986, it is important that the multiplicity question be tested in 1986 as well. The panel, in fact, recommended in its interim report (National Research Council, 1984)
|
From page 193... ...
We believe we can be most useful to the Census Bureau by recommending general strategies for deciding the priorities to assign in its 1990 census research and testing program. The Census Bureau staff exercised some selection in the process of drawing up the proposed package of 1986 pretests of coverage improvement programs, but the package still seems much too ambitious for the likely available staff and budget resources and for the time available to design, execute, and evaluate the results from this and subsequent pretests prior to 1990.
|
From page 194... ...
The Vacant/Delete Check met a minimum standard of 0.5 percent additions to the count, but it was costly in 1980. A high priority for further research on this program would involve investigation of ways to reduce costs, for example, by returning to the use of sampling, as in 1970 (see further discussion in Chapter 6, where the panel recommends that the Census Bureau conduct research on the use of sampling for the Vacant/ Delete Check and possibly other coverage improvement programs)
|
From page 195... ...
For coverage improvement procedures that the Census Bureau decides to retain in its research and testing program, the panel believes it is important to further categorize them into programs that need early field testing versus those that can be researched with other, less expensive, and less staff-intensive methods. For example, it may not be necessary to include the Casual Count program in any early full-scale pretest.
|
From page 196... ...
Furthermore, we recommend that the Census Bureau use focus groups that include members of hard to-count populations as one means to explore coverage improvement techniques and to narrow the range of options to be field-tested.
|
From page 197... ...
The tables shown in this section express findings from the PEP in terms of ratios of the gross omission rate for a population group to the average rate experienced for the total population. Population groups are placed into one of five categories of relative gross omission rates: (1)
|
From page 198... ...
Several tables show relative gross omission rates from the PEP for population groups categorized by household relationship, race and Hispanic origin (ethnicity) , type of place, and by ethnicity and type of place crossed with rates of nonreturn of the mail questionnaires in the district offices.
|
From page 199... ...
aCategories of relative gross omission rates are as follows: (1) Very high: greater than or equal to 3 times the average rate.
|
From page 200... ...
, the dispersion in relative rates of gross omissions increases dramatically. While blacks on average had a high relative gross omission rate, those blacks in district offices with mail nonreturn rates of 30 percent or more had a very
|
From page 201... ...
d and Type of Place Very high -- 35% or higher: Central city, large SMSA Central city, small SMSA High -- 30% or higher: Other, SMSA Outside SMSA 25-34%: Central city, large SMSA Moderately high Central city, large SMSAb 25-34%: Central city, small SMSA 10-24%: Central city, large SMSA Average Central city, small SMSAc 15-29%: Other, SMSA Other, SMSA Outside SMSA Outside SMSA 5-24%: Central city, small SMSA All mailout-mailback areas Below average Conventional areas 0-14%: Other, SMSA Outside SMSA 0-9%: Central city, large SMSA 0-4%: Central city, small SMSA NOTE: The average gross omission rate for the 1980 PEP was 5.4%. aCategories of relative gross omission rates are as follows: (1)
|
From page 202... ...
The 5-8 series estimated an overall rate of gross omissions of 5.25 percent and the 14-20 series a rate of 3.45 percent compared with the 5.4 percent rate estimated by the 3-8 series. In relative terms, all three series found that blacks had a high relative gross omission rate, Hispanics a moderately high rate, men and women average rates, young adults ages 15-24 a moderately high rate, persons age 45 and older below-average rates, and other age groups average rates.
|
From page 203... ...
Black single return filers had high relative gross omission rates regardless of income level; however, income discriminated among black joint return filers, with those reporting less than $8,000 income showing a high relative rate of gross omissions but those reporting $15,000 or more income a below-average rate. Among whites, those filing single returns with reported income under $15,000 and those filing joint returns with income under $8,000 fell into the category of moderately high relative gross omission rates, while the remainder fell into the below-average category.
|
From page 204... ...
Tables 5.8 through 5.11 show relative gross omission rates for the population categorized along several dimensions from the results of the match of the April 1960 Current Population Survey to 1960 census records and of the match of
|
From page 205... ...
aCategories of relative gross omission rates are as follows: (1) Very high: greater than or equal to 3 times the average rate.
|
From page 206... ...
aCategories of relative gross omission rates are as follows: (1) Very high: greater than or equal to 3 times the average rate.
|
From page 207... ...
Very high Nonrelative Education not reported High -- -- Moderately high Other relative 6 or fewer years of school completed Average Head More than 6 years of school completed Wife Son or daughter Below average -- -- NOTE: The average gross omission rate for the 1950 Post-Enumeration Survey-Census Match was 2.2%. aCategories of relative gross omission rates are as follows: (1)
|
From page 208... ...
Finally, tables are not shown by type of area or region of the country, as these dimensions did not discriminate significantly in either 1960 or 1950 on relative rates of gross omissions. In 1960 the population of urban areas, rural nonfarm, and rural farm areas all exhibited average relative gross omission rates (Bureau of the Census, 1964a:Table 8)
|
From page 209... ...
Similarly, higher-income whites had a below-average gross omission rate, but this was not true for higher-income blacks. Unemployed and low-income persons of both races had average rates of gross omissions.
|
From page 210... ...
However, the dispersion in gross overenumeration rates is less than the dispersion in gross omission rates. Table 5.12, as an illustration, shows relative rates of gross overenuneration for ethnicity and household relationship in 1980.
|
From page 211... ...
This pattern is similar to the pattern evidenced in Table 5.5 for relative gross omission rates, but the dispersion is less for gross over numerations. e Similar findings emerge for categories of household relationship: household members outside the nuclear family had higher rates of both gross overenumerations and gross omissions compared with nuclear family members but were not as badly overenumerated relative to the average as they were underenumerated (see Table 5.4)
|
From page 212... ...
In general, most population groups fell into the same categories of relative gross overenumeration and gross omission rates. Some groups appeared to have been less often overenumerated than underenumerated relative to the average rates (as was the general pattern in 1980)
|
From page 213... ...
Within the rental category, units for which rent was not reported and with very low monthly gross rent had very high relative gross omission rates; in contrast, moderate-to-expensive units fell into the average category. The smallest units (only one room)
|
From page 214... ...
This estimate, although based on methodology that the Census Bureau believes to be superior to the methodology used in previous censuses, is an underestimate because it excludes various other kinds of housing unit overenumerations. Looking at relative duplication rates, the South had a moderately high rate of housing unit dupli ations c in 1980, as did mail areas where the address list was developed by Census Bureau staff (prelist areas)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.