Improving the
American Community Survey
Proceedings of a Workshop
Daniel L. Cork, Rapporteur
Committee on National Statistics
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
The project that is the subject of this report was supported by the U.S. Census Bureau through Contract No. YA1323-14-CN-0033. Support of the work of the Committee on National Statistics is provided by a consortium of federal agencies through a grant from the National Science Foundation (No. SES-1024012). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-49000-9
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-49000-6
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/25387
Additional copies of this publication 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 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Improving the American Community Survey: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25387.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit nationalacademies.org/whatwedo.
PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE WORKSHOP ON IMPROVING THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY
WARREN BROWN (Chair), Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research, Cornell University
SUSAN BROWER, Minnesota State Demographic Center
SHAWN BUCHOLTZ, Housing and Demographic Analysis Division, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
MICHAEL DAVERN, NORC at the University of Chicago
DONALD DILLMAN, Department of Sociology and Social and Economic Sciences Research Center, Washington State University
BETH JAROSZ, Population Reference Bureau
PATRICE MATHIEU, Social Survey Methods Division, Statistics Canada
DANIEL CORK, Study Director
ANTHONY MANN, Senior Program Associate
BRIAN HARRIS-KOJETIN, Director, Committee on National Statistics
COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL STATISTICS
2019
ROBERT M. GROVES (Chair), Office of the Provost, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, and Department of Sociology, Georgetown University
MARY ELLEN BOCK, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
ANNE C. CASE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
MICHAEL CHERNEW, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School
JANET CURRIE, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
DONALD A. DILLMAN, Department of Sociology, Washington State University
DIANA FARRELL, JPMorgan Chase Institute, Washington, DC
DANIEL KIFER, Department of Computer Science, Pennsylvania State University
THOMAS L. MESENBOURG, Retired; formerly, U.S. Census Bureau
SARAH M. NUSSER, Department of Statistics, Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology, Iowa State University
COLM A. O’MUIRCHEARTAIGH, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, and NORC at the University of Chicago
JEROME P. REITER, Department of Statistical Science, Duke University
JUDITH A. SELTZER, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles
C. MATTHEW SNIPP, Department of Sociology, Stanford University
BRIAN HARRIS-KOJETIN, Director
CONSTANCE F. CITRO, Senior Scholar
Acknowledgments
Like the March 2016 workshop that preceded it, this Workshop on Improving the American Community Survey (ACS) was the culmination of an intense and quick period of scoping, planning, and development on the part of the staff of the U.S. Census Bureau and the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, as well as the volunteer members of the workshop planning committee. The September 26–27, 2018, workshop was remarkable for its range of expert and stakeholder input, and it is hoped that it (and the subsequent expert meetings) will prove as productive to the ACS research and development agenda as was the 2016 effort.
The time, talent, quality, and candor of the Census Bureau’s ACS research team was on great display in the Census Bureau’s presentations, for which we thank them sincerely. We particularly appreciate the support of Victoria Velkoff, head of the ACS Office during the formation and execution of the workshop; she has since been named associate director for demographic programs at the Census Bureau. With Velkoff, Jennifer Ortman was particularly critical to the construction of the workshop agenda, along with Elizabeth Poehler. We are grateful to them and to all the Census Bureau staff who spoke at and participated in the workshop.
The workshop would not have been possible without the input and guidance of the fellow members of the workshop planning committee, who were unflagging in their support. And, of course, it would not have been possible without the expertise and the commitment of the experts who answered our call to speak at the workshop or serve as discussant. Even in those cases when they might not have seen a direct connection between their work and the ACS, their contributions were all on-point and extremely valuable. We would be remiss if we did not make special mention of Amy O’Hara (Georgetown University) for so eagerly and ably filling a key discussant role on the workshop’s first day—on not much more than 24-hour notice—when the scheduled discussant developed
a sudden (but very understandable) time conflict. We commend them all for their contributions.
These proceedings are the main product of the workshop. This report was prepared by a rapporteur whose charter was to distill the gist of the presentations and the essence of the discussions. The planning committee’s role was limited to planning and convening the workshop. The views contained in the report are those of individual workshop participants and do not necessarily represent the views of all workshop participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
This Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published proceedings as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings: Warren Brown, Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research, Cornell University; Daniel Kasprzyk, Independent consultant, Chevy Chase, MD; and Andrew Reamer, Institute of Public Policy, The George Washington University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the proceedings nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this proceedings was overseen by Judith A. Seltzer, California Center for Population Research, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. She was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this proceedings was carried out in accordance with standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteur and the National Academies.
Warren Brown, Chair
Planning Committee for the Workshop on Improving the American Community Survey
Contents
2 Administrative Records, Third-Party Data, and the American Community Survey
2.1 Broad Visions for Administrative Data Use in American Community Survey (ACS) Production
2.1.1 Outlining the Broad Roles
2.1.2 Census Bureau Internal Evaluation of Alternative Data Sources
2.2 Census Bureau Research and Practice on Administrative Records in the ACS
2.2.1 Simulating the Use of Administrative Records in ACS Production, for Housing Variables
2.2.2 Comparison of ACS-Based and Administrative Records-Based Indicators of Income
2.3 Applications and Emerging Best Practices
2.3.2 Experience from Linking Survey Data, Administrative Data, and Social Media Extracts
2.3.3 Improving ACS Estimation with Multiple Surveys and Third-Party Data
2.3.4 Insights and Data Products from Linking Health Survey Data with Administrative Housing Data
2.3.5 Lessons Learned from Construction and Use of the National Mortgage Database
2.3.6 Value Added from Linking Multiple Data Resources and Survey Data at the Regional Level
2.3.7 Private Sector Experience with Data Linking and Blending
3 Increasing American Community Survey Participation Through Improved Respondent Communication
3.1 Overview of Respondent Contact Strategies
3.1.1 Census Bureau’s Current ACS Mail and Contact Strategy
3.1.2 Contrast: Statistics Canada’s Wave Methodology Approach for Census/Survey Respondent Contacts
3.2 ACS Testing on Respondent Contact Strategies
3.2.1 Overview of ACS Tests to Boost Participation Through Improved Communication
3.2.2 A View From the Private Sector
3.3 Rethinking the Communication Process With Respondents: Toward a Strategic Framework
3.3.1 Introduction to Census Bureau’s Strategic Framework
3.3.2 Review of How Current ACS Mail Materials Mesh With the Strategic Framework, and Next Steps
3.4 Listening to ACS Respondents
3.4.1 Assessing High-Burden ACS Questions
3.4.2 Lessons Learned from ACS Focus Group Work
3.4.3 Trends in Respondent Concerns and Assessing Burden
3.4.4 Discussion: Assessing Burden and Resolving Respondent Concerns
3.4.5 Discussion: Structuring Respondent Communication Based on Feedback
This page intentionally left blank.
List of Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
2.2 Nonresponse and income imputation in the American Community Survey, 2006–2016.
3.1 Target audience and mailing package contents, 2018 American Community Survey mailing strategy.
3.2 Introductory letter included in Mailing 1 of American Community Survey, 2018 version.
3.4 Reminder letter from Mailing 2, American Community Survey, 2018 version.
3.5 Follow-up letter included in Mailing 3 of American Community Survey, 2018 version.
3.6 Reminder postcard sent as Mailing 4 of American Community Survey, 2018 version.
3.7 Reminder letter sent as Mailing 5, American Community Survey, 2018 version.
3.8 Overview of wave methodology and enumeration style in the 2016 Census of Canada.
3.9 Interior of general initial (Wave 1) mailing, 2016 Census of Canada.
3.10 Exterior of general initial (Wave 1) mailing, 2016 Census of Canada.
3.11 Internet and mail daily response rates, 2016 Census of Canada.
TABLES
2.1 Available and Ideal Administrative Records for Income Questions on the American Community Survey
2.3 Data Compilation Methods for Income Components and Income Taxes, 2016 Canadian Census
3.1 Collection Response Rates in the 2011 and 2016 Censuses of Canada
3.3 Response Rates by Collection Methodologies, 2016 Census of Canada
3.4 Impact of Wave 1 Letter/Response Option Choice, Live Test in 2011 Census of Canada
3.5 Experimental Design and Results, 2017 American Community Survey Pressure Seal Test
3.6 Results, American Community Survey Mail Design Test
3.7 Experimental Design and Results, 2017 American Community Survey Adaptive Strategy Test
BOXES
1.1 Topics on the American Community Survey
2.1 Administrative Records at the Census Bureau
2.3 Introductory Text and Disclaimer Used in 2016 Canadian Census
2.4 Market Segments Defined in Claritas’ Prizm® Premier Data Product
3.1 Text of Introductory Letters, Waves 1–3 of 2016 Census of Canada
3.2 Example of Codebook Entries, Potential Messages in American Community Survey Mail Materials
