REALIZING THE POTENTIAL OF THE
AMERICAN
COMMUNITY
SURVEY
Challenges, Tradeoffs, and Opportunities
Panel on Addressing Priority Technical Issues for the Next Decade of the
American Community Survey
Committee on National Statistics
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. YA 1323-11-CN-0032 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Census Bureau. Support for the work of the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-36678-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-36678-X
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2015 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: Realizing the Potential of the American Community Survey: Challenges, Tradeoffs, and Opportunities. (2015). Panel on Addressing Priority Technical Issues for the Next Decade of the American Community Survey, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This page intentionally left blank.
PANEL ON ADDRESSING PRIORITY TECHNICAL ISSUES FOR
THE NEXT DECADE OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY
ALAN M. ZASLAVSKY (Chair), Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School
MICHAEL DAVERN, NORC at the University of Chicago
JEFF HARDCASTLE, Nevada Small Business Development Center, University of Nevada, Reno
SCOTT H. HOLAN, Department of Statistics, University of Missouri
JAMES S. HOUSE, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
DAVID HUBBLE, Westat, Rockville, MD
LINDA A. JACOBSEN, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC
MICHAEL W. LINK, A.C. Nielsen, New York, NY
JENNIFER H. MADANS, National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
DAVID A. PLANE, School of Geography and Development, University of Arizona
JEROME P. REITER, Department of Statistical Science, Duke University
JOSEPH J. SALVO, New York City Department of City Planning
ROBERT L. SANTOS, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC
KRISZTINA MARTON, Study Director
NANCY J. KIRKENDALL, Senior Program Officer
MICHAEL J. SIRI, Program Associate
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS
2013-2014
LAWRENCE D. BROWN (Chair), Department of Statistics, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
JOHN M. ABOWD, School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University
MARY ELLEN BOCK, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
DAVID CARD, Department of Economics, University of California, Berkeley
ALICIA CARRIQUIRY, Department of Statistics, Iowa State University
MICHAEL E. CHERNEW, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School
CONSTANTINE GATSONIS, Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University
JAMES S. HOUSE, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan
MICHAEL HOUT, Department of Sociology, New York University
SALLIE KELLER, Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA
LISA LYNCH, Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University
COLM O’MUIRCHEARTAIGH, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago
RUTH PETERSON, Criminal Justice Research Center, Ohio State University
EDWARD H. SHORTLIFFE, Department of Bioinformatics, Columbia University and Arizona State University
HAL STERN, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine
CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Director
Acknowledgments
On behalf of the Panel on Addressing Priority Technical Issues for the Next Decade of the American Community Survey, we wish to thank everyone who contributed their time and expertise to assist the panel’s work and the preparation of this report. The study was initiated by the Census Bureau, under the leadership of then-director Robert Groves, and has greatly benefited from the guidance and continued support of the Census Bureau’s senior management. We are particularly grateful to James Treat, chief of the American Community Survey Office, and to Nancy Torrieri, who recently retired from the Census Bureau, for facilitating the work of the panel.
Census Bureau staff readily assisted the panel through presentations and responses to a large number of requests for background materials about the American Community Survey. We thank a long list of current and former staff: Mark Asiala, Wesley Basel, Michael Beaghen, William Bell, Scott Boggess, Tasha Boone, Grace Clemmons, Chandra Erdman, Alexandra Figueroa, Michael Freiman, Sirius Fuller, Debbie Griffin, Sam Hawala, Steven Hefter, Adriana Hernandez-Viver, Todd Hughes, David Johnson, John Jordan, Karen King, Robert Kominski, Amy Lauger, Jerry Maples, Peter Miller, Freddie Navarro, Sally Obenski, Brett O’Hara, Cody Pfau, David Raglin, Daniel Sommers, Michael Starsinic, Jennifer Tancreto, Anthony Tersine, Yves Thibaudeau, Michael Thieme, Victoria Velkoff, Frank Vitrano, Daniel Weinberg, Tommy Wright, and Laura Zayatz. The panel’s work touched on many aspects of the American Community Survey, and we know that there were others who worked in the background
and dedicated significant time to responding to the panel’s requests for information.
The panel received substantial help with data analysis from Joel Alvarez of the New York City Department of City Planning. We are also grateful to Ned English and Becki Curtis from NORC, Jean D’Amico from the Population Reference Bureau, Rachel Flanigan and Alexis Irion from the University of Nevada, Reno, and Gary Christopherson from the University of Arizona for their contributions to the panel’s work.
We thank the National Research Council (NRC) staff who contributed to this study. We are grateful for the guidance and support received from Constance Citro, director of the Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), for the input provided by CNSTAT senior program officers Nancy Kirkendall and Michael Cohen, and the contributions of former senior program officer Edward Spar. Kirsten Sampson Snyder expertly coordinated the review process, Eugenia Grohman provided thoughtful editorial help, and Yvonne Wise shepherded the report through production. We also thank program coordinator Michael Siri for able logistical support for the meetings.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Chet Bowie, NORC at the University of Chicago; Steven Heeringa, Institute for Survey Research, University of Michigan; Michael Hout, Department of Sociology, New York University; Linda Gage, State of California, retired; Graham Kalton, Westat; Andrew Reamer, George Washington Institute of Public Policy, George Washington University; Hal Stern, Donald Bren School of Information and Computer Sciences, University of California, Irvine; and Richard Valliant, Joint Program in Survey Methodology, Universities of Maryland and Michigan.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by William Eddy, Department of Statistics, Carnegie Mellon University, and Kenneth
Wachter, Departments of Demography and Statistics, University of California at Berkeley. Appointed by the NRC, they were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Alan Zaslavsky, Chair
Krisztina Marton, Study Director
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
1 Vision for the American Community Survey
The ACS in Concept and Implementation
Panel Approach and Initial Assessment
Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing the ACS
2 Sample Design and Precision of Estimates
Precision of the ACS and Census Long-Form Samples
Usability of Tract Data from the 2008-2012 ACS
Conclusions and Recommendations
ACS Data Products and Dissemination Methods
Data Product and Dissemination Challenges
Possibilities for Modification
The ACS Content Change Process
A Usability Analysis: Tract-Level 2008-2012 ACS Data
B Examples of Differences Between Census Counts and ACS Population Estimates
C Data Quality Filtering Rates, 1-Year Data, 2012
D Data Quality Filtering Rates, 3-Year Data, 2010-2012
E 2014 American Community Survey Mail Questionnaire